As the title asks, and in conjunction, I'm wondering why full-disk encryption is "better" to some folk.
This is not taking into consideration of theft, but rather, something or someone infecting my machine and then being able to exploit my data.
From my understanding, once a user has logged on to their OS, even with their drive encrypted, they're still at risk from having their data accessed in some way(s).
I was looking at this question and now I feel as though I'm not getting the entire picture.
I use VeraCrypt's file container solution to stash my sensitive data on my primary drive (securely). According to VeraCrypt's own user guide, the data I access is never stored in the plain. It is always encrypted, and even when accessed, is only ever decrypted in RAM.
So, this to me takes into consideration of swap files and other insecure placements of my sensitive data throughout my drive.
Even if I were to encrypt my drive, the data has to be decrypted at some point. So, either way, that particular risk will always be there. However, in my case, isn't keeping my sensitive data within the file container sufficient for my "security" needs (ignoring theft)?
If not, can you please explain why I might need full-disk encryption?