Feedback Thread Firmware M0CR070 for the MX300

Kilobyte Kid

Re: Feedback Thread Firmware M0CR070 for the MX300

HW Tech...

 

Tried Etcher; worked great.   Wish I had known about it two days ago!

Bit Baby

Re: Feedback Thread Firmware M0CR070 for the MX300

I have some issues with recent firmwares.


1) Recent firmwares have made my laptop more battery-draining, especially during sleep -- it drained 50%+ of 56 Wh battery overnight, and system analysis tool shows SATA as top offender. I suppose this is related to removal of APM.

2) In some cases the drive is not recognized by the system, but it works fine when I connect the drive to external USB to SATA bridge. Only after a safe removal, the drive can be recognized by internal SATA again.

Kilobyte Kid

Re: Feedback Thread Firmware M0CR070 for the MX300

This firmware update created additional issues with bitlocker. Simply reverting PSID creates some sort of a new issue, since after a fresh windows 10 pro install I am not able to turn HW encryption on anymore. Bitlocker shows a message - An unexpected network error, whatever this might be. Windows event log shows 2 error items:

error #1 ----

- <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
- <System>
<Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-BitLocker-Driver" Guid="{651df93b-5053-4d1e-94c5-f6e6d25908d0}" />
<EventID>24586</EventID>
<Version>0</Version>
<Level>2</Level>
<Task>0</Task>
<Opcode>0</Opcode>
<Keywords>0x8000000000000000</Keywords>
<TimeCreated SystemTime="2019-03-08T22:23:46.434974200Z" />
<EventRecordID>1148</EventRecordID>
<Correlation />
<Execution ProcessID="4" ThreadID="548" />
<Channel>System</Channel>
<Computer>DESKTOP-5GJ4L7L</Computer>
<Security UserID="S-1-5-18" />
</System>
- <EventData>
<Data Name="ErrorCode">0xc0000203</Data>
<Data Name="Volume">D:</Data>
<Data Name="WritePhase">0x0</Data>
</EventData>
</Event>

 

error #2 ----
<Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
- <System>
<Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-EnhancedStorage-EhStorTcgDrv" Guid="{aa3aa23b-bb6d-425a-b58c-1d7e37f5d02a}" />
<EventID>10</EventID>
<Version>0</Version>
<Level>2</Level>
<Task>1</Task>
<Opcode>57</Opcode>
<Keywords>0x8000000000000000</Keywords>
<TimeCreated SystemTime="2019-03-08T22:23:46.428081100Z" />
<EventRecordID>1147</EventRecordID>
<Correlation />
<Execution ProcessID="4" ThreadID="268" />
<Channel>System</Channel>
<Computer>DESKTOP-5GJ4L7L</Computer>
<Security UserID="S-1-5-18" />
</System>
- <EventData>
<Data Name="Description">SetTableColumns</Data>
<Data Name="Param1">0x80200030003</Data>
<Data Name="Param2">0x600000017</Data>
<Data Name="Param3">0x5</Data>
<Data Name="Param4">0x9</Data>
<Data Name="CmdStatus">0xf</Data>
</EventData>
</Event>

The only way to fix this for me was to securely wipe my mx300 and then PSID revert.

 

Thank you.

Alex

Highlighted
JEDEC Jedi

Re: Feedback Thread Firmware M0CR070 for the MX300


@pointone wrote:

This firmware update created additional issues with bitlocker. Simply reverting PSID creates some sort of a new issue, since after a fresh windows 10 pro install I am not able to turn HW encryption on anymore. Bitlocker shows a message - An unexpected network error, whatever this might be. Windows event log shows 2 error items:

............

The only way to fix this for me was to securely wipe my mx300 and then PSID revert.

I assume, not many people use HW enc. on these SSD's, because I can't find any issue reports after FW update + bitlocker.

BTW, have you fixed all the backdoors with this FW update for mx300 and mx500? Microsoft advises to stop using HW enc.

So, what should we do?

Thank you.

Alex


Its possible there was an issue with the older firmware which needed a Secure Erase to reset it.  I had to perform Secure Erases due to glitches in the old firmware hanging on after an update.  IF this happened to yours, then I could see Bitlocker complaining.  Plus whenever a major change occurs to a system, there is always a possibility of side effects.

 

According to posts by Crucial on these forums, all of the security issues discovered by the university study were addressed in the latest firmware updates.

 

Microsoft advises to stop using HW enc.

So, what should we do?

I'm not sure whether you are asking about Windows compatibility with hardware encryption or about trusting the security of the built-in hardware encryption.  

 

I'm not a Windows user so I cannot really say if there are any other issues with Bitlocker's eDrive hardware encryption.  In theory it should be Ok and should be the easiest to use since support is built into Windows.

 

If you don't want to use Bitlocker's hardware encryption, then you could just use the standard OPAL hardware encryption using the free software from here.  This isn't quite the same as Bitlocker's implementation.

 

You could implement ATA Security instead by using the BIOS hard drive password, but many people consider this is less secure and there are compatibility issues in moving the drive from one system to another which is one reason why the OPAL standard was created.

 

If your question is about trusting the security of the built-in encryption or you want another option besides Bitlocker, then you can always use software encryption such as VeraCrypt.   If your CPU has built-in AES support and the software based drive encryption supports CPU AES instructions, then it should not have too much of a performance impact.  See the VeraCrypt info here.

 

As for trust, well I'm a pessimist.  I figure with enough knowledge, time, money, equipment & even luck that everything is vulnerable in some way.  It all depends on who you are afraid will have access to your computer or drive.  The way I figure it is if you just end up losing the computer or the drive, then most likely the data will be safe since the average person finding it won't have the resources to break into it.   

 

If you are a high risk of being specifically targeted and are worried about government agencies or other well connected individuals, then I figure all bets are off.  Something is better than nothing.  Personally I think Bitlocker could be more vulnerable than the standard OPAL option I linked earlier, because Bitlocker usually uses the system BIOS as part of its security model which offers another path to your data if the person has access to both computer & encrypted drive.  Security is hard to implement in the first place and there will always be bugs or unseen consequences in how things are implemented.