Apple to Drop Support for Encrypted Mac OS Extended Drives Next Year

[MacRumors]

Apple yesterday published a new support document warning that macOS 28 will no longer support encrypted Mac OS Extended (HFS+) volumes, meaning affected external drives will need to be decrypted or reformatted ahead of the update.

Starting with macOS 28, "the Mac OS Extended file system format will be supported only for volumes (disks and other storage devices) that aren't encrypted." Any encrypted HFS+ disks, such as older encrypted external hard drives, will stop working with the Mac unless users take action before upgrading.

Apple has not given a specific reason for the change. APFS, which natively supports encryption, has been the default file system on the Mac since macOS High Sierra launched in 2017, and dropping encrypted HFS+ support looks like a further nudge toward retiring the older format altogether.

The transition will start showing up before macOS 28 arrives. Apple says that beginning with macOS 26, a Mac might notify users if it detects an encrypted Mac OS Extended disk that will not carry over to macOS 28 or later, identifying the affected volume by name.

Users can also check manually through Disk Utility by selecting a volume and looking at the format details listed beneath its name; a volume showing both "Mac OS Extended" and "Encrypted," such as "CoreStorage Logical Volume • Mac OS Extended (Case-sensitive, Journaled, Encrypted)," will be incompatible.

Unencrypted Mac OS Extended volumes are not affected. Apple says macOS 28 and later will continue to support them, and notes that Mac OS Extended is also known as HFS Plus, or HFS+.

For anyone who wants to keep using an affected drive after upgrading, Apple recommends backing up its contents first, then either reformatting or decrypting it. Reformatting means erasing the volume and setting it up again in APFS or APFS (Encrypted) format through Disk Utility, which permanently deletes existing data but ensures the drive keeps working in future versions of macOS.

Decrypting is the alternative for anyone who wants to preserve their existing data on the drive. That involves connecting the drive, unlocking it with its encryption password, then Control-clicking its icon in the Finder or on the desktop and choosing Decrypt, entering the password a second time to begin the process. Apple notes that decryption "takes time, especially for large volumes," and progress can be checked in Terminal.

Once decryption finishes, users can optionally convert the volume to APFS without erasing it via Disk Utility's Convert to APFS option, and re-encrypt it afterward if desired. Apple notes that this decryption path does not apply to encrypted Time Machine backup disks.

Article Link: Apple to Drop Support for Encrypted Mac OS Extended Drives Next Year

 

[Anaxarxes]

Older File System being dropped with a newer, more secure system already been in place since almost 10 years?

Good.

 

[AppleTO]

I’ve never used them, but good to know.

 

[!!!]

Older File System being dropped with a newer, more secure system already been in place since almost 10 years?

Good.

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

I'd be more interested in APFS if I could just manage my own snapshots, yet Apple tells me I'm not allowed to manage my own hardware like that, I have to pay $100/year just to be rejected for an "entitlement" to use my own hardware.

 

[hieranonymous]

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

I'd be more interested in APFS if I could just manage my own snapshots, yet Apple tells me I'm not allowed to manage my own hardware like that, I have to pay $100/year just to be rejected for an "entitlement" to use my own hardware.

You should switch to Linux.

 

[gummybear2026]

Apple going to charge for encrypted external drives in 2027 or drop support entirely.

 

[JosephAW]

Have several encrypted disc image files, DMG. Will those still be accessible? 🙄

 

[MSKenyon]

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

I'd be more interested in APFS if I could just manage my own snapshots, yet Apple tells me I'm not allowed to manage my own hardware like that, I have to pay $100/year just to be rejected for an "entitlement" to use my own hardware.

This is my concern as well. Undocumented and proprietary. Lets hope to Apple opening up sooner then later.

-- Me

 

[tkermit]

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

They'll continue supporting HFS+ though. It's only the Core-Storage-based encryption mechanism that is being removed. If HFS+ had native encryption, they'd probably continue supporting that.

Have several encrypted disc image files, DMG. Will those still be accessible? 🙄

Yes.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

I'd be more interested in APFS if I could just manage my own snapshots, yet Apple tells me I'm not allowed to manage my own hardware like that, I have to pay $100/year just to be rejected for an "entitlement" to use my own hardware.

That’s a fair criticism of Apple’s direction, but this update is narrower than “HFS+ is being removed.” Unencrypted HFS+ volumes remain supported. The practical issue is that anyone with encrypted HFS+ archive drives will need to decrypt them or migrate to APFS. This might be frustrating for people using large HDDs for long-term storage, where HFS+ has been stable and generally simple (for advanced users), but it’s still not accurate to say Apple is removing HFS+ altogether.

HFS+ was released back in 1998 though. It is time to move on. It's also important to recognize that HFS+ will fall victim to the 2040 date limit so it's not good for really long-term backups.

 

[GMShadow]

Have several encrypted disc image files, DMG. Will those still be accessible? 🙄

DMGs have nothing to do with HFS+.

 

[Localcelebrity]

Ugh. I hate the idea of finding one of my old external drives and plugging it into my Mac at some point in the future and finding out that it can’t be read unless I go to an older Mac and decrypt it.

I feel like it makes sense to stop allowing MacOS to boot off of/run on one, but they should keep allowing the Finder to read/decrypt them for a long time, even if support for it is something that needs to be downloaded ad-hoc when the system detects an encrypted HFS+ drive.

Or JUST allow Disk Utility to decrypt it with the password but nothing else.

 

[neuropsychguy]

This is my concern as well. Undocumented and proprietary. Lets hope to Apple opening up sooner then later.

-- Me

“Proprietary” is fair, but “undocumented” isn't the correct word to use. Apple has published an APFS reference, so the format is not a total black box.

 

[gummybear2026]

They'll continue supporting HFS+ though. It's only the Core-Storage-based encryption mechanism that is being removed. If HFS+ had native encryption, they'd probably continue supporting that.

Any encrypted HFS+ disks, such as older encrypted external hard drives, will stop working with the Mac unless users take action before upgrading.

Apple is dropping support for encrypted HFS+ external drives starting next year.

 

[theluggage]

Older File System being dropped with a newer, more secure system already been in place since almost 10 years?

Maybe, but how long do you expect your archives and backups to remain readable? Esp. since APFS wasn't immediately adopted for externals, backups etc.

Meanwhile, just stripping out encryption support and leaving HFS+ seems bizarre, though. I presume there's a reason - but if it's (say) due to a "will not fix" security vulnerability, it would be nice to know.

 

[tkermit]

Meanwhile, just stripping out encryption support and leaving HFS+ seems bizarre, though. I presume there's a reason - but if it's (say) due to a "will not fix" security vulnerability, it would be nice to know.

Although I haven't seen this confirmed, my assumption is that Core Storage will be removed in its entirety, which probably eliminates a significant maintenance burden.

 

[displayblock]

APFS isn't great for spinning disks.

I guess if you have an assortment of encrypted hard drives sitting in cold storage, Apple now wants you to decrypt them so anyone can connect to them, or upgrade them to expensive SSDs that will then sit in storage.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Maybe, but how long do you expect your archives and backups to remain readable? Esp. since APFS wasn't immediately adopted for externals, backups etc.

Meanwhile, just stripping out encryption support and leaving HFS+ seems bizarre, though. I presume there's a reason - but if it's (say) due to a "will not fix" security vulnerability, it would be nice to know.

So prevent the creation of new ones. The issue is that anyone who has a random hard drive will be denied their data due to an arbitrary reason. Data accessibility is basically the paramount tool for computing, across all computer types.

 

[erikkfi]

Apple has not given a specific reason for the change.

Apple is a dictatorship.

 

[2638se]

macOS is never going to replace Windows as the enterprise OS if this is their altitude towards old tech and compatibility.

 

[platinumaqua]

I don't use Encrypted HFS+ volumes, but I found that APFS is more fragile than Apple suggested. It can get to a point where their own Disk First Aid can't fix them and there are no third party disk repair tools for APFS.

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

So prevent the creation of new ones. The issue is that anyone who has a random hard drive will be denied their data due to an arbitrary reason. Data accessibility is basically the paramount tool for computing, across all computer types.

A random hard drive accessed from an operating system that won't be released until 2027 and remains accessible from older versions of the OS.

 

[k1121j]

Sadly i never encrypt my disks... it seems like there are always limitations or issues to those who have an encrypted disk, for that reason i just avoid it

 

[Abydos]

blah, blah - similar chatter when floppy disks and cd/dvd 's became special cases - grow up things change whether you like it or not - evolve or become extinct

 

[ChrisA]

Or: An older, well used, well documented, trusted file system that works well with HDs which are far cheaper and more economical for mass storage, is being removed in favor of an undocumented, backwards-incompatible, hard-to-clone filesystem designed for SSDs which dangles nice features, like snapshotting, behind proprietary and inaccessible APIs.

I'd be more interested in APFS if I could just manage my own snapshots, yet Apple tells me I'm not allowed to manage my own hardware like that, I have to pay $100/year just to be rejected for an "entitlement" to use my own hardware.

APFS is dramatically better for all use cases. What Apple is doing is removing what many refer to as "bloat". In the OS. My guess is that it takes a lot of RAM to hold decrypted metadata for an encrypted HFS+ disk. Performance might be the issue, as well as retiring HFS+ at some later date.

I do not understand the comment about "snapshots". The term does not even apply to HFS+. You can not "snapshot" an HFS volume. It does not have the concept of "copy on write" like other file systems such as APFS, ZFS or BTRFS.