My setup

I have ThinkPad P1 Gen 3 laptop and want it to dual boot Linux and Windows 10. For that I want to use a boot manager supporting both Linux and Windows; currently I'm using rEFInd. I also want to have Secure Boot on and have my Windows drive encrypted using BitLocker.

The problem: BitLocker doesn't work

The problem is I cannot encrypt my drive using BitLocker. When I boot Windows using rEFInd BitLocker doesn't work. I identified that it gets disabled, because PCR7 binding is not possible - in System Information it says:

PCR7 Configuration: Binding Not Possible

Device Encryption Support: Reasons for failed automatic device encryption: PCR7 binding is not supported; Un-allowed DMA capable bus/device(s) detected

All that seems to be related to Trusted Platform Module (TPM) somehow, but I'm still reading more about this subject, which is new to me.

On the other hand when I boot Windows directly from UEFI entry, omitting rEFInd, PCR7 binding is possible and BitLocker works fine.

I tested other boot managers supporting Linux, e.g. systemd-boot, and the problem was the same. So the problem is not unique to rEFInd, but to any boot manager that's not Windows Boot Manager ran directly by UEFI.


Why is PCR7 binding not possible when booting Windows from other boot manager? How can I fix that?


Why is PCR7 binding not possible when booting Windows from other boot manager?

PCR7 is the register which logs all Secure Boot parameters – the full contents of PK/KEK/db, as well as the specific certificates used to validate each boot application (i.e. rEFInd, Bootmgfw, Winload.efi).

BitLocker appears to have a deliberate restriction that it will only bind to PCR7 if its value indicates that the entire boot chain is signed exclusively using Microsoft's "Windows Production PCA" certificates. It will refuse if something along the way (e.g. rEFInd or other third-party bootloader) was signed using a different certificate, even if that other certificate is trusted by your UEFI configuration.

This is most likely meant to isolate operating systems in a dual-boot environment, e.g. prevent someone from simply rebooting into arbitrary unsecured Linux via Shim and gaining access to your Windows files that way.

(Note: BitLocker's PCR7 usage does not prevent you from having custom certificates installed in PK, KEK, or db – it's okay to have a custom-keyed Secure Boot setup for Linux purposes, as long as those custom db entries don't participate in the Windows boot process.)

Of course, if Secure Boot is off and rEFInd wasn't signed at all, then PCR7 has no useful information in the first place and cannot be used.

How can I fix that?

If you are using the "Device Encryption" feature (Windows 10 Home/Pro), you cannot avoid this – this trimmed-down version of BitLocker always requires Secure Boot and TPM PCR7 usage.

If you are using the full version of BitLocker (Windows 10 Pro only), all of this doesn't prevent BitLocker from using the TPM in general – it can still use the alternative method of binding to PCR0/2/4/11 (PCR4 is the register containing the exact hashes of boot files). The problem is that PCR0/2/4 usage is slightly more fragile and tends to result in Recovery Key prompts more often. For example, every time you update Shim or rEFInd, the PCR4 value will change and you will need the recovery key.

Finally, usage of the TPM isn't actually mandatory for BitLocker. If it's causing too many problems, there is a Group Policy setting and a manage-bde command which will allow you to use a basic password-based protector instead. (Again, this only works with the full BitLocker in Windows Pro.)

(Note: If you enable BitLocker with PCR7 binding active, then reboot via rEFInd so that PCR7 is now unusable, you will be prompted for a recovery key and BitLocker will automatically re-bind against PCR0/2/4/11 instead. And vice versa, rebooting from UEFI menu directly into Windows will cause BitLocker to try re-binding against PCR7 after the recovery key is input.)

My suggestion: Just always use the firmware-provided UEFI boot menu to select your OS. If it's ugly or inconvenient, then use the "BootNext" feature via efibootmgr --boot-next or bcdedit.exe /bootsequence to directly boot into the requested OS. (This even allows you to have "Linux" as a Windows desktop shortcut, for example.)

I think BitLocker isn't limited to encrypting the whole disk.

BitLocker in "Software encryption" mode never encrypts the whole disk – it encrypts the Windows partition, exactly like one would use LUKS to encrypt their Linux partition.

All other partitions remain unaffected. In particular, because UEFI firmware generally doesn't have built-in BitLocker support, the "EFI System Partition" has to remain unencrypted.

Is it possible to use two UEFI partitions?

Yes, but 1) you don't need to, 2) it won't really help you. There is no difference between using two partitions, and putting both Windows and Linux boot files in the same partition – only the files themselves matter at all.

  • Thanks! That's a ton of useful info I wasn't able to find anywhere on the internet. I actually use Shim loader to load rEFInd and it doesn't work, so it seems BitLocker doesn't accept anything signed by Microsoft Corporation UEFI CA 2011 certificate. – Robert Kusznier Apr 11 at 14:37
  • How can I switch BitLocker to use alternative method of binding to PCR0/2/4/11? – Robert Kusznier Apr 11 at 14:45
  • It seemed to be automatic for me. At least if you successfully enable it with PCR7 first, it seems like after a recovery-key reboot it will always rebind to whatever is possible (and manage-bde -protectors lists the currently active binding). However, you can try using Group Policy (gpedit.msc), "Computer > Administrative > Windows Components > BitLocker > Operating System" has a few knobs -- both to disable Secure Boot PCR7 binding, and to force a custom binding profile. – user1686 Apr 11 at 14:49
  • Keep in mind that because PCR4 includes the hashes of all .efi executables that were loaded, this means you will need the recovery key every time you update Shim.efi or rEFInd.efi, as that'll invalidate the old binding. – user1686 Apr 11 at 14:53
  • 1
    I think I finally realized why this restriction from BitLocker is necessary. If it wasn't in place, and if you used PCR7 binding together with e.g. Shim+rEFInd, then there would be a possibilty to boot into another OS (possibly attacker-provided OS) in a way that still results in the same PCR7 event log and gives access to your BitLocker-encrypted Windows partition. – user1686 Apr 11 at 15:08

I have a dual boot laptop, UEFI with secure boot, Ubuntu with LUKS and Windows 10 Pro with Bitlocker. The downside of my installation is that I don't use the TPM module and have to type in a password to unlock bitlocker. I don't remember the exact steps, I believe I followed the standard procedure for dual boot without Bitlocker, then enabled Bitlocker afterwards. I have no idea what a PCR7 binding is. I use Grub2 as boot manager.

EDIT: Just remembered that I followed this guide: Mike Kasberg - How to Dual-Boot Ubuntu 20.04 and Windows 10 with Encryption

  • Why did you disable TPM? Did it give you any problems? – Robert Kusznier Apr 11 at 13:29
  • I'm no Windows bitlocker or TPM expert. I've set up bitlocker only a few times. What I remember is that bitlocker requires full disk encryption if I'm correct, and that is impossible with dual boot, unless you have two internal disks of course. But I might be wrong here. – SPRBRN Apr 11 at 13:31
  • I think BitLocker isn't limited to encrypting the whole disk. Currently I have a single disk, on which I have both Windows and Linux partitions. I can encrypt the Windows partition using BitLocker, as long as I'm booting Windows directly from UEFI (without using rEFInd). – Robert Kusznier Apr 11 at 13:34
  • Is it possible to use two UEFI partitions? Curious question! I don't know if this works, just a suggestion. You can of course have multiple UEFI partitions, but will it work to switch booting from one to the other and back? – SPRBRN Apr 11 at 13:36
  • It seems you can have multiple UEFI partitions. I've been reading somewhere that it's actually what you need to do, when you want to boot multiple versions of Windows on a single machine. But my problem doesn't need that. I'm actually able to boot Windows from firmware's menu without any issues. It's just that I want to have a better UX and boot it from rEFInd. Mainly because I think there is nothing wrong with that and it should be doable. – Robert Kusznier Apr 11 at 13:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.