On 08/24/2010 02:44 PM, Doug Hughes wrote:
> Paul Graydon wrote:
>> On 08/24/2010 02:25 PM, Doug Hughes wrote:
>>> You're right. I confused secure erasing (which no longer requires many
>>> passes, even though it remains part of the common cargo-cult lore),
>>> with
>>> recovery under normal circumstances. It is plausible, that normal
>>> non-erased data could be recovered with a controller change on
>>> different
>>> commonly used drive models of similar types.
>>
>> That one whizzed past my head with an audible whooshing sound. Since
>> when does secure erasing no longer require multiple passes?
>> _______________________________________________
> The commoditization of PRML in 1996 or so.
> See the epilogue of the Guttman paper:
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html
>
> "For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is
> the best you can do. As the paper says, "A good scrubbing with random
> data will do about as well as can be expected". This was true in 1996,
> and is still true now."
>
> Simson Garfinkel went on at his last LISA IT to indicate that one or
> two is probably sufficient for all but the most resource-rich
> opponents, with 3 being for the ultra paranoid.
Interesting. Thanks to you and David both. That'll cut down on
disk-wiping time in future :)
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
