On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >I think that assumes that the two get averaged together in some way
> >and cannot be separated. If you could determine the orientation of
> >individual magnetic domains it is possible that
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>I think that assumes that the two get averaged together in some way
>and cannot be separated. If you could determine the orientation of
>individual magnetic domains it is possible that you might be able to
>determine which ones are which. For
Am Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:32:39 +0200
schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann :
> Am 12.07.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Marc Joliet:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have to failed drives that I want to give away for recycling purposes, but
> > want to be sure to properly clear them first. They used be part of a btrfs
> > RAID10 ar
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
> Am 12.07.2015 um 23:30 schrieb Rich Freeman:
>> Impossible is a pretty bold claim. You need proof, not evidence that
>> a particular recovery technique didn't work. I can demonstrate very
>> clearly that I'm unable to crack DES, but
Am Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:50:57 +
schrieb "Thomas Mueller" :
> All that has been said on this thread supposes that the hard drive is still
> readable and writable.
>
> But the original post stated this was a failed drive.
>
> Then you might not be able to dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx .. or what
Am Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:43:44 +0200
schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann :
> http://www.howtogeek.com/115573/htg-explains-why-you-only-have-to-wipe-a-disk-once-to-erase-it/
Yeah, that was linked from the Arch wiki I looked at.
> http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwriting_hard_drive_data.pdf
FWIW, Pete
Marc Joliet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to failed drives that I want to give away for recycling purposes, but
> want to be sure to properly clear them first. They used be part of a btrfs
The test patterns used on Solaris and marked with "federal requirements" are:
int purge_patterns[]= {
Am 13.07.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Thomas Mueller:
> All that has been said on this thread supposes that the hard drive is still
> readable and writable.
>
> But the original post stated this was a failed drive.
>
> Then you might not be able to dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx .. or whatever else.
>
> You
Am 12.07.2015 um 23:30 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
>> read the second link I provided.
>>
> I did. It contains no theoretical arguments against the possibility
yes it does.
> of data recovery. Theoretical limits would be ones like the
All that has been said on this thread supposes that the hard drive is still
readable and writable.
But the original post stated this was a failed drive.
Then you might not be able to dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx .. or whatever else.
You would be stopped by bad sectors.
Or a hard drive might not
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
> But, simpler: if you combine a random stream of data with what is on the
> drive, the result looks just like random data. You need only overwrite the
> drive once.
I think that assumes that the two get averaged together in some way
and cannot be
@topic: I would strongly suggest using a hardware key that also utilizes a
passphrase. To delete, remove the key and/or don't tell anyone the
passphrase. If you need to destroy a platter drive take it apart and sand
the platters (probably the easiest). If it's solid state heat the drive
over 150C-2
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
> read the second link I provided.
>
I did. It contains no theoretical arguments against the possibility
of data recovery. Theoretical limits would be ones like the
uncertainty principle. If a given amount of matter could only store
Am 12.07.2015 um 23:10 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
>> Unlike you, I read some stuff before posting. This is OLD NEWS:
> No need to be rude.
>
>> http://www.howtogeek.com/115573/htg-explains-why-you-only-have-to-wipe-a-disk-once-to-erase-it
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> Unlike you, I read some stuff before posting. This is OLD NEWS:
No need to be rude.
>
> http://www.howtogeek.com/115573/htg-explains-why-you-only-have-to-wipe-a-disk-once-to-erase-it/
>
> http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwritin
Am 12.07.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
>> actually 1 time is enough. With zeros. Or ones. Does not matter at all.
>>
> That depends on your threat model.
nope. It doesn't.
You believe in some urban legend you never dared to
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:21:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> While some kind of native support would be nice, and likely more
> efficient in some ways, you could just layer btrfs on top of an
> encrypted loopback device.
The problem with that approach, if you use RAID, is that all writes must
be en
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>
> Am Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:48:48 -0400
> schrieb Rich Freeman :
>
>> If it weren't painful to set up and complicated for rescue attempts,
>> I'd just use full-disk encryption with a strong key on a flash drive
>> or similar. Then the disk is as
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> actually 1 time is enough. With zeros. Or ones. Does not matter at all.
>
That depends on your threat model.
If you're concerned about somebody reading the contents of the drive
using the standard ATA commands, then once with zero
Am 12.07.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Marc Joliet:
> Hi,
>
> I have to failed drives that I want to give away for recycling purposes, but
> want to be sure to properly clear them first. They used be part of a btrfs
> RAID10 array, but needed to be replaced (with "btrfs replace"). (In the
> meantime I co
(Thanks to everyone for the replies so far!)
Am Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:48:48 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman :
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> >
> > My question is how precisely the disks should be cleared. From various
> > sources
> > I know that overwriting them with random d
Em 12/07/2015 10:03, "Mick" escreveu:
>
> On Sunday 12 Jul 2015 13:35:25 Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have to failed drives that I want to give away for recycling purposes,
> > but want to be sure to properly clear them first. They used be part of
a
> > btrfs RAID10 array, but needed to b
On Sunday 12 Jul 2015 13:35:25 Marc Joliet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to failed drives that I want to give away for recycling purposes,
> but want to be sure to properly clear them first. They used be part of a
> btrfs RAID10 array, but needed to be replaced (with "btrfs replace"). (In
> the meanti
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>
> My question is how precisely the disks should be cleared. From various
> sources
> I know that overwriting them with random data a few times is enough to render
> old versions of data unreadable. I'm guessing 3 times ought to be enough, bu
24 matches
Mail list logo
