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

[retta283]

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.

I find this to be poor reasoning. Mechanical hard drives can last decades, possibly a full lifetime in cold storage. I don't believe it's a good idea to strip access to data just because the format it's sitting on became outdated, despite the data being intact. It's not like we burn books that aren't printed on modern paper. There's plenty of useful records and information sitting on HFS+ drives across the world, you never know what could be lost.

Also macOS still supports FAT32 which is an even older filesystem that is barely updated from the mid 80s and was never even used by Macintosh systems. FAT is an objectively bad filesystem by every metric but it is still supported by Macs, in fact it's easier to format a new disk as FAT on Mac than on Windows where the option to do so is not visible in GUI. HFS+ should not be a priority for removal at all even if we are sending things to the chopping block.

 

[bzgnyc2]

My understanding of Apple's statement. if you have an encrypted drive, un-encrypted the day before OS 28 releases. Once OS 28 launches, re-encrypt the drive.

If one tries to encrypt an HFS+ volume under macOS 28, I am guessing it will either refuse or convert it to APFS. Which may not be what people -- especially those people that have resisted converting to APFS up until now.

Sounds simple enough.

For many people it may all be handled magically behind the scenes but for some people these things will matter.

For those using both HFS+ and encryption (for the most part a conscience decision at this point) they should at least know it is coming and then make a decision on how they want to handle. I think the biggest issue will be for those who have hard drives in archive that use encrypted HFS+. It will be much easier for them to handle this proactively than find out when trying to pull data from the archive a year after upgrading all their systems.

 

[Abydos]

I have two raids each a mixture of hfs+and apfs on a mixture of hdd and ssd - no issues thus far, I have a third raid of xfat hdd's for linux, windows systems, I also have a xfat hdd for sharing among the three systems. no encrypted disks but encrypted files on the disks, unless I have to do some serious software upgrades on my raids I don't see the change as an issue

 

[bzgnyc2]

CoreStorage isn't used for encrypting disk images, so nothing should change in that respect (regardless of the file system). You can check by running

diskutil cs list

in the Terminal.

I was referring to the previous post that said that HFS+ and DMG are completely unrelated. I would not say that.

I agree that Apple may retain the ability to access encrypted DMG that contain HFS+ while removing the ability to mount encrypted HFS+ filesystems on disks. I assume the former based on what you wrote but I couldn't promise it based on the information provided so far.

 

[knappeduivel]

Apple is a dictatorship.

Apple is a company, not a country. Companies are not usually democratic.

 

[tomtad]

That is one rough icon

 

[tkermit]

I was referring to the previous post that said that HFS+ and DMG are completely unrelated. I would not say that.

I agree that Apple may retain the ability to access encrypted DMG that contain HFS+ while removing the ability to mount encrypted HFS+ filesystems on disks. I assume the former based on what you wrote but I couldn't promise it based on the information provided so far.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, of course. Especially when it comes to Apple. But I currently see no indication or technical reason to think that encrypted disk images will stop supporting HFS+ or any of the other currently supported file systems. Apple's GG B3 release notes specifically refer to CoreStorage only:

Encrypted HFS+ (CoreStorage) is deprecated and will not be supported in a future version of macOS. If you use Encrypted HFS+ backups on external drives, begin backing up to encrypted APFS-formatted external drives instead.

 

[MSKenyon]

“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.

I guess I didn't explain well. Undocumented meaning not as well documented as HFS+. However HFS+ has had more years to /BE/ documented. But I understand. Thanks for that point.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I find this to be poor reasoning. Mechanical hard drives can last decades, possibly a full lifetime in cold storage. I don't believe it's a good idea to strip access to data just because the format it's sitting on became outdated, despite the data being intact. It's not like we burn books that aren't printed on modern paper. There's plenty of useful records and information sitting on HFS+ drives across the world, you never know what could be lost.

Also macOS still supports FAT32 which is an even older filesystem that is barely updated from the mid 80s and was never even used by Macintosh systems. FAT is an objectively bad filesystem by every metric but it is still supported by Macs, in fact it's easier to format a new disk as FAT on Mac than on Windows where the option to do so is not visible in GUI. HFS+ should not be a priority for removal at all even if we are sending things to the chopping block.

Interesting enough FAT32 is actually more forward-looking when it comes to dates -- it allows for dates through 2099 (and possibly 2107). It is also a common interchange file format including for DCF.

That said for the reasons you mentioned I agree Apple should retain the ability to read HFS+ indefinitely given it has been in active use in the Apple community for around for >25 years (it will be 30 years in 2028).

However, the ability the mount HFS+ disks as read/write filesystems seems less critical to me. Nor in the short-term maintain the ability to write to encrypted volumes.

 

[retta283]

Interesting enough FAT32 is actually more forward-looking when it comes to dates -- it allows for dates through 2099 (and possibly 2107). It is also a common interchange file format including for DCF.

That said for the reasons you mentioned I agree Apple should retain the ability to read HFS+ indefinitely given it has been in active use in the Apple community for around for >25 years (it will be 30 years in 2028).

However, the ability the mount HFS+ disks as read/write filesystems seems less critical to me. Nor in the short-term maintain the ability to write to encrypted volumes.

I had forgotten the details with FAT in terms of date support, that's good to know. For some reason in my mind I thought it was affected by 2038 but I suppose it does not rely on Unix epoch.

I definitely agree that only having read access is really relevant in the long term, can't imagine why you'd need to write to HFS+ drives in 20 years besides working with old Macs, which while I am into that sort of thing I understand it is a very niche subset of users. Could just be handled like NTFS is currently, or even the way Apple's very own HFS+ driver for Windows works. Annoyingly, they have not made such a driver available for APFS.

 

[bzgnyc2]

More likely the encryption relies on some legacy x86-era library code that they don't want to maintain, maybe something that is part of Rosetta2 (which is going away at the same time)?

I would be shocked if all the original code wasn't written in C with optional assembly language optimizations available for x86 but not required. Parts of encrypted HFS+ date back to 10.3 which was PPC so likely the code was ported to x86 and then enhanced in the C code from there over the years (e.g. especially in 10.7).

I would also be surprised if someone at Apple hadn't already writen assembly language optimizations for the related encryption/decryption code that shipped with Big Sur. Especially since it's AES encryption which is used in a lot of places not just HFS+.

 

[skodises]

I have several dozen encrypted HFS+ drives stored offsite in my safe deposit box, full of work product created over the last 20+ years while I was working as an expert witness in patent prosecution. I'm contractually obligated to maintain access to that data for a few more years yet (truth be told, I'm probably obligated to maintain access to it until I finally shuffle off this mortal coil).

I've watched with dismay as Apple has abandoned several chunks of their existing customer base once again, here recently. And I've watched with no interest whatsoever as they have taken the corporate decision to turn all their products into telephones (presumably for the convenience of their AI product teams). And now, I have to go pull those archival disks out, decrypt them, and move that data to some other format due simply and only to yet another arbitrary decision on the part of Apple management?

So be it. As the rather glib poster above says, maybe I should move to Linux. Maybe, indeed. I have no interest in moving said data back onto anything Apple-specific at this point.

 

[Nozgog]

I have an external HFS+ SSD from my intel MacBook. When I bought an Apple Silicon Mac I couldn’t make the HFS+ SSD work. It just hangs and doesn’t do anything … any tips?

 

[neuropsychguy]

HFS+ should not be a priority for removal at all even if we are sending things to the chopping block.

Edit: I saw that another commenter said some of what I do below.

I agree that preserving access to old data matters, but I think you are overstating some things. First, this change is not Apple removing HFS+ entirely. It is Apple ending support for encrypted HFS+ volumes in macOS 28 and later; unencrypted HFS+ volumes remain supported. That will affect some people, but they can take steps now to migrate data if they have it and will be using macOS 28.

Second, long-term digital preservation generally requires migration, redundancy, and periodic verification of the data. An old hard drive (even in cold storage) with an aging filesystem is not the digital equivalent of a book on a shelf.

That is also exactly why I brought up the 2040 date limit. My point was not “burn the old books.” My point was that HFS+ should not be treated as a sound format for new long-term backups or archives. Keeping legacy read access where practical is reasonable (and it sounds like Apple will continue with that other than encrypted drives). Continuing to rely on HFS+ indefinitely for encrypted archive storage is not.

Also, while FAT32 does not have the HFS+ 2040 date limit, it is not a serious long-term backup filesystem. Its continued support is mostly about removable-media compatibility, not archiving. If you are archiving data, use something more robust like ZFS, Btrfs, or even APFS at this point (although that's Apple-specific).

So yes, it's important to preserve access and provide migration paths, but “old data exists on HFS+” is not a strong argument for continuing to use HFS+ as a serious long-term backup format.

 

[Anaxarxes]

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.

I’d genuinely like to understand your point of view here.

APFS already supports snapshots, and users can manage them through Disk Utility or from Terminal using built-in commands. Are you referring to third-party tools such as Bombich’s utilities that provide a more user-friendly GUI? Or is your concern that Apple doesn’t expose enough of APFS through public APIs and developer entitlements?

If it’s the latter, then I think we’re talking about Apple’s broader philosophy rather than APFS itself. Apple has never really embraced an open platform approach—they tend to expose only what they believe users and developers should have access to, even if that means limiting power users. No news there.

As for HFS+, I can understand why Apple isn’t investing engineering resources into maintaining or extending it. APFS has been their primary file system for nearly a decade. Continuing to develop encryption, snapshots, and compatibility for HFS+ would mean splitting engineering effort across two fundamentally different file systems, and I don’t think that’s a worthwhile trade-off.

 

[ProVideo]

Guess it's time for me to move my encrypted 4TB HFS+ HDD drives to APFS formatted SSD drives. Luckily prices for new hard drives haven't skyrocketed in the past year. /s

 

[Anaxarxes]

I disagree here.

File systems should be supported for as long as possible unless there are serious technical challenges that prevent it. This means that someone who has an HFS+ drive they encrypted for archival storage may lose access to their data.

That sucks. Especially since the person accessing that archival drive could be a family member dealing with their aged parent or their estate.

That does not mean that at all.

They're dropping encryption support. IT's been 10 years for you to update your HFS+. If you're relaying to obsolete tech to manage your critical data, either you're lazy, irresponsible or your data is not *that* critical

The person accessing archival data dealing with their parent or their estate can easily upgrade to a safer and more modern tech by adding their files to a new drive. (and what is the population percentage that uses encrypted HFS file system to manage their aged parent's data).

These scenarios are being ridiculous. Not to mention no-one is forcing them to upgrade to macOS 27.

 

[Anaxarxes]

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.

I would not be surprised to see only reason being that Apple does not want engineering teams to spend money on maintaining older tech.

 

[jbc25]

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.

Big facts. Some poor dude is gonna plug in their old encrypted backup drive to restore some critical files one day, and they're gonna be in a whole lot of hurt because of this.

If this is just Apple assuming nobody needs this anymore and they don't want to bother maintaining it, they're making a mistake.

 

[nutmac]

That's not true. APFS is a more modern filesystem with many improvements over HFS+, but HFS+ had numerous optimizations for spinning disks which are still relevant to those who use them (and which were more cost effective at large sizes and even more so with the spike in SSD prices).

You are absolutely correct. APFS underperforms HFS+ when used with spinning hard disks.

But since HPFS is being deprecated (Disk Utility in macOS 26 doesn't even offer HPFS), it's better to just move on.

Also, enabling disk defragmentation on APFS hard disks can alleviate the problem, as documented by Enabling Defragmentation on APFS Hard Drives article.

 

[neuropsychguy]

I have several dozen encrypted HFS+ drives stored offsite in my safe deposit box, full of work product created over the last 20+ years while I was working as an expert witness in patent prosecution. I'm contractually obligated to maintain access to that data for a few more years yet (truth be told, I'm probably obligated to maintain access to it until I finally shuffle off this mortal coil).

I've watched with dismay as Apple has abandoned several chunks of their existing customer base once again, here recently. And I've watched with no interest whatsoever as they have taken the corporate decision to turn all their products into telephones (presumably for the convenience of their AI product teams). And now, I have to go pull those archival disks out, decrypt them, and move that data to some other format due simply and only to yet another arbitrary decision on the part of Apple management?

So be it. As the rather glib poster above says, maybe I should move to Linux. Maybe, indeed. I have no interest in moving said data back onto anything Apple-specific at this point.

I sympathize with your situation. You might need to migrate (HFS+ has the 2040 year date issue -- I'm not sure how old you are and how long you will live, but that will be a real issue), but you could also keep accessing the encrypted drives with a macOS version <28.

However, if you want long-term digital preservation, you need to occasionally migrate data and create redundancy. This takes time and is a pain to do, but it's necessary for reliable archiving.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I had forgotten the details with FAT in terms of date support, that's good to know. For some reason in my mind I thought it was affected by 2038 but I suppose it does not rely on Unix epoch.

One bit of trivia -- HFS+ date/time limitation is similar but different than Unix epoch. HFS+ uses an unsigned 32-bit integer relative to 1904-01-01 and this is a hard definition in the on-disk file format. It flips over 2040-02-06 regardless of the host system.

The Unix issue has to do with the choice in the API of a signed integer relative to 1970-01-01 that was originally chosen to be 32-bit. For those systems the flip occurs on 2038-01-19, but true 64-bit systems won't have any issues.

Then my guess is that Catalina and later versions of macOS won't be impacted by the Unix epoch issue in 2038 while I believe the earlier versions (e.g. everyone's favorite Snow Leopard) will have problems on 1/19/2038. Not sure the exact versions that keep working after that date but my guess is anything before El Capitan won't.

However, my guess is that regardless of host system a date mess (or crash) will occur with any attempt to create files or otherwise write to HFS+ volumes after 2/6/2040.

 

[jbc25]

I have several dozen encrypted HFS+ drives stored offsite in my safe deposit box, full of work product created over the last 20+ years while I was working as an expert witness in patent prosecution. I'm contractually obligated to maintain access to that data for a few more years yet (truth be told, I'm probably obligated to maintain access to it until I finally shuffle off this mortal coil).

I've watched with dismay as Apple has abandoned several chunks of their existing customer base once again, here recently. And I've watched with no interest whatsoever as they have taken the corporate decision to turn all their products into telephones (presumably for the convenience of their AI product teams). And now, I have to go pull those archival disks out, decrypt them, and move that data to some other format due simply and only to yet another arbitrary decision on the part of Apple management?

So be it. As the rather glib poster above says, maybe I should move to Linux. Maybe, indeed. I have no interest in moving said data back onto anything Apple-specific at this point.

And imagine all the people in similar situations as you who don't keep up on this kind of news. Those folks are gonna find out the hard way. This could be a disaster for some people. Apple has to rethink this.

 

[TheAngryKiwi]

Apple is a dictatorship.

Yawn.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

My point was that HFS+ should not be treated as a sound format for new long-term backups or archives.
...
So yes, it's important to preserve access and provide migration paths, but “old data exists on HFS+” is not a strong argument for continuing to use HFS+ as a serious long-term backup format.

Should not does not mean will not though, and I'm sure there are people using it for data storage.

Apple could make encrypted drives read only, but they aren't.