-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 November 2003 06:35, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 03:54, Adrian Pirciu wrote: > > Dude, you don't know what you're talking about, really. To delete > > a file = to mark a file "deleted". There are 2 cases: > > > > 1. just mark the file as deleted and then use the space whenever > > needed: > > - pros: speed (you just have to write a few bytes to mark a file > > for deletion, on fat systems just 1 byte afaik), undeleting stuff > > (if you are telling me that you never needed an undelete > > program.. well..) > > > > - cons: some other unwanted people might undelete stuff you don't > > want to have undeleted... > > 1b) and remove the pointers to the data thus unallocating the > inodes. So, the inodes are not marked as deleted, but marked as > unused/free space. > > > 2. delete entire file (like overwriting the space occupied by the > > deleted data it with other garbage data) > > - pros: fewer chance of undeletion (NOT null-chances, since with > > proper (expensive) equipment, somebody might still recover the > > data.. incredible isn't it ? that's why many programs let you > > choose how many times to overwrite the deleted portion ... (even > > hundreds of times) > > > > - cons: SPEED !!! if the system would have to overwrite every > > file you delete, the writing speed would be half on deletion !! > > (example: to delete 1 700MB movie on my system would take 0.01 > > sec at most for case 1 and about 20-30 secs for case2) > > and the third dos/windows FAT way: > just add a special charackter to the name and don't show it to the > user anymore, but have it still in the FAT OR shove it into the > trashcan. > > > Linux and Windows and any system which cares about itself and its > > users should use the first variant by default, letting the users > > choose if they want that kind of security like file shredded by > > other programs.. At least on ext2 it is possible to undelete > > stuff, and maybe on the others too, but nobody really cared to > > design such programs... > > in ext2 you have a bitmap of the inodes and a well known structure. > This making undelete a complicate but doable process, scanning for > unallocated inodes, checking them and dump them into lost&found. > > Reiser with its B*-trees is something different, at the latest when > you hit packed tails. > > > by the way, deleting a file will not put it in linux (by default > > at least) in "a hidden dir". The space which is marked as deleted > > can be used by the system at any time, and it appears as "free > > space" (not like windows recycle bin). > > Maybe I was not clear. > I am familar to the different ways of deleting a file. > But I think that simple renaming/shoving it into a hidden dir, can > not be called 'deleting'. Additionally there seems to be a huge > intervall between 'deleting' and 'overwriting' in windows, apart > from this 'trashcan' crap wich has nothing to do with deleting at > all. > > With linux, unmount/remounting ro could be (and in a lot of cases > will be) enough to overwrite the freed inodes. > > If something is 'deleted' it should be gone from the fs point of > view (like in linux). Not hidden from the user with a nifty > charackter or in a special dir (like in dos or windows). So to > install a tool, simple to unhidde and/or delete this hidden files > is only a weak patch for a imho borked design.
I now understand what you mean. Taking out of discussion the "recycle bin" stuff, which of course can't be named deletion, I'm not sure if the "marking" (4E in hexa if I remeber correctly) is so bad after all. Of course, there will be records in FAT that maybe shoudn't be there, but at least a beginner can undelete his mp3s or part of them after a mistake. I would be tempted to say that this marking thing was meant for beginners, but at the time when dos was created, i doubt they designed FAT with this consideration in mind. All in all, fat follows the windows style, and it's up to the users to choose a file system. > > A tool to 'increase' your feeling of secured privacy may be a fine > thing, but a) after you copied some files to the partition, it > should not be necessary anymore and b) with this nice journaling > fs.. are you sure, that th write-command really hits the platters? > I am not man. > > That you can do some forensics on harddisks is a completly > different topic and if you have the money to buy the hard&software > to do that, or pay a labor to do it for you, you also have the > money for a more than decent backup solution, rendering the whole > topic useless. > > > If I didn't understand you correctly, please excuse me. > > > > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 04:33, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 19:31, Oliver Lange wrote: > > > > Redeeman wrote: > > > > > its not a minus, its also a feature, sometimes if i delete > > > > > data i really want it to disappear! > > > > > > > > Well if i want to delete a file forever, there are many tools > > > > out there which do the job. For example, Krusader offers a > > > > "shred" command, other tools work from the console. These > > > > tools overwrite the whole file with Null-Bytes before > > > > deleting them. > > > > > > that is the same like buying a car.. and buying a second one > > > for left turns... > > > > > > If I delete a file, I want it to be gone. Nothing else. > > > > > > rm means remove not 'park this in a hidden dir' or 'obfuscate > > > the name'. > > > > > > That windows does not realy 'delete' but merely renames and > > > overwrites files, is only an additional sign for windos weak > > > design. Undeleting there is not a feature, but a way to exploit > > > the shortenings of fat. > > > > > > > -- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/xDJTHMw8JJ+r9ucRAvzsAJ9VO6UtBuxGgpf4NDYCYbfzg7BoRgCeMzQA TP22xZ8KDW5b8ObYqJa6k/g= =1fp0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
