Destroying Hard Drives

[Timothy Daniels]

No I"m not. I mean, using the best technology mankind has
at it's disposal, sparing NO expense and working on it until
the end of time.


Yes, and it can "maybe" result in a slightly higher success
than random chance. Taken over billions of bytes, that's
not even remotely close to being able to reconstruct data.


Theory about a phenomenon is not same thing as actually
being able to use it fruitfully.



Vague nonsense.



Nope, it's just paranoia.

There are established data-write techniques that are proven
to be unrecoverable, not as a matter of "how easy or
expensive", but rather, UNRECOVERABLE.

You've morphed your argument as you have done in the past.
You've gone from "multi-pass random writes" to "established
data-write techniques". You didn't start out with "established"
techniques, but "multi-pass" techniques. If I were to prove that
3 passes weren't enough, you'd say you were talking about
4 passes. If I then proved there were techniques that can
retrieve data after 4 passes, you'd say you were talking about
5 passes, etc. I maintain that 3 is "multi" - your original thesis -
and the DOD requires about a dozen passes. Obviously, you
and the DOD disagree. Go ahead and scoff and continue to
live in your ignorance, because at your level of importance, one
pass should suffice.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

You've morphed your argument as you have done in the past.
You've gone from "multi-pass random writes" to "established
data-write techniques".

Yes, that IS an established technique. Just because you
don't understand something, doesn't mean someone else
doesn't know what they wrote.

You didn't start out with "established"
techniques, but "multi-pass" techniques.

Multi-pass IS an established, THE established technique.

If I were to prove that
3 passes weren't enough,

Random nonsense again.
Prove it isn't.

you'd say you were talking about
4 passes. If I then proved there were techniques that can
retrieve data after 4 passes,

Again nonsense.
Prove it can be done with 2 passes first then!

So far, the only evidence to date is that an intact file,
having been overwritten only 1 time, has some chance of
being recovered. 1 time, "some". After the second random
pass, it would be orders of magnitude harder if even
possible. For the record, I would consider 5 times
sufficient, but suspect 3 times is enough.

you'd say you were talking about
5 passes, etc.

You have quite an imagination. Why not just ask first, THEN
make your argument? It would certainly be more productive
than guessing.

I maintain that 3 is "multi" - your original thesis -
and the DOD requires about a dozen passes. Obviously, you
and the DOD disagree.

You really aren't even slightly sane are you?

NOW, after having mentioned the 5 passes, you "would" have
had some kind of argument, IF you had any data to back up
your wild tangents. However since you had jumped the gun
without even the slightest clue how many passes I had meant
when I wrote the previously message, you hadn't even the
slightest chance of basing an argument on anything but a
random guess.

Go ahead and scoff and continue to
live in your ignorance, because at your level of importance, one
pass should suffice.

It's sad when someone stoops so low. At least try harder to
make a convincing argument next time.

HINT- anyone who's heard of Google can find an automated
tool to do the DOD wipes- it's harder NOT to do it, to
specify some other technique or # of passes, than to do it.
However, there are several specs for DOD, the number of
wipes to meet each.

Regardless, again I challenge you to find even one example
of a drive having been recovered from even 3 passes.

 

[Alceryes]

"Impossible" is merely a term used to describe something that hasn't been
discovered or invented yet.

--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Impossible" is merely a term used to describe something that hasn't been
discovered or invented yet.

I would add that "impossible" is a term used by the ignorant.
And those for whom things are possible would like to keep
it that way.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Alceryes]

I would add that "impossible" is a term used by the ignorant.

And those for whom things are possible would like to keep
it that way.

Are you implying that, "those for whom things are possible," impossible
poses a threat? For if they truly believe it is impossible then they have
nothing to fear...
--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes

 

[kony]

I would add that "impossible" is a term used by the ignorant.
And those for whom things are possible would like to keep
it that way.

Lofty goals and idealism about the future and boundless
technological advance/ideology (blah blah blah) can have
it's place.. but similar nonsensical idealisms will exist
for those things that really ARE impossible as well as those
that are not.

Put in perspective, unless someone makes some sweeping new
scientific discovery, PDQ, there won't even be any
mechanical drives around to recover.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"kony" morphed again:

Lofty goals and idealism about the future and boundless
technological advance/ideology (blah blah blah)...

Your ignorance is of current capabilities, not future capabilities.
Much of shat you believe to be "impossible" is actually possible
now. There is much invested to maintain that ignorance, so
enjoy it.

*TimDaniels*

 

[DaveW]

You do NOT want to heat them; they will give off lethal gases. Use a hand
sledge hammer and it will only take a minute per drive to destroy them.

 

[kony]

Your ignorance is of current capabilities, not future capabilities.
Much of shat you believe to be "impossible" is actually possible
now. There is much invested to maintain that ignorance, so
enjoy it.

I suppose you feel your bluff is working?

Nope.

These are industry standard and accepted data-wipe
strategies, for this EXACT PURPOSE.

So far, you're only blowing hot air. Show us even the
slightest evidence that even a mere two passes of non-random
data could not thwart recovery. let alone even one example
of a DOD-approved wipe being recovered.

You're delusional.

 

[Cyde Weys]

So far, you're only blowing hot air. Show us even the
slightest evidence that even a mere two passes of non-random
data could not thwart recovery. let alone even one example
of a DOD-approved wipe being recovered.

You're delusional.

Hear hear, kony!

 

[dividby0]

simplest solution:
write a "0" (ZERO) on every bit of the HDD (low level format)
then physically destroy it
either by a sledge hammer
dropit intothe ocean
throw it into a black hole
or barbeque it

 

[w_tom]

Exactly the point. Nixon's tapes were not digital. Analog
data is even easier to recover .... and still that
magnetically stored information, erased by only one overwrite,
could not be recovered. But to make irrecoverable data even
more irrecoverable from future technologies, then use multiple
overwrites.

Any argument to the contrary is not tempered by real world
experience - made even obvious since Nixon's analog tapes were
recently analyzed again. Still that 'easier to recover'
analog recording could not be recovered.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Why should analog signals be easier to separate from
other analog signals and noise than digital signals are?
Digital pulses are easier to selectively filter for a given
pulse strength and pulse phase. They can be identified
even on an oscilloscope. Pulse "slop" into inter-track
regions can also be quite different from background
noise to make their extraction easier.

Suffice it to say that the DOD does not depend on
overwrites to assure destruction of classified information.
It requires physical destruction at an official destruction
station for that because it is forced to assume, given its
own capabilities, that overwrites are not guarantees of
non-recoverability. Go argue with them about their
precautions being merely due to paranoia.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

Why should analog signals be easier to separate from
other analog signals and noise than digital signals are?
Digital pulses are easier to selectively filter for a given
pulse strength and pulse phase. They can be identified
even on an oscilloscope. Pulse "slop" into inter-track
regions can also be quite different from background
noise to make their extraction easier.

Suffice it to say that the DOD does not depend on
overwrites to assure destruction of classified information.
It requires physical destruction at an official destruction
station for that because it is forced to assume, given its
own capabilities, that overwrites are not guarantees of
non-recoverability. Go argue with them about their
precautions being merely due to paranoia.

Not at all, it is THEY who have already determined these
methods for the prevention of recovery. When the day comes
(doubtful but playing along with your delusion) that they
uncover technology making it possible to recover data wiped
using their prior strategies, they will most certainly
develop a new one.

There is one thing we can be quite certain of- that they
have extensively tried to recover data wiped using their
spec, and have not been able to. That's WHY they exist in
the first place.

 

[FML]

There is one thing we can be quite certain of- that they
have extensively tried to recover data wiped using their
spec, and have not been able to. That's WHY they exist in
the first place.

....but what if what they *want* you to think?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Not at all, it is THEY who have already determined these
methods for the prevention of recovery. When the day comes
(doubtful but playing along with your delusion) that they
uncover technology making it possible to recover data wiped
using their prior strategies, they will most certainly
develop a new one.

There is one thing we can be quite certain of- that they
have extensively tried to recover data wiped using their
spec, and have not been able to. That's WHY they exist in
the first place.

DoD requires physical destruction at a secure facility
even after erasure. See:
http://www.defenselink.mil/nii/org/cio/doc/computerdisposal.doc

To quote:
"system administrators are highly encouraged to perform overwrite
or 'wipe disk' procedures on functioning disk drives before CPUs
are turned in for disposal by using a pseudo-random overwrite utility
that is available with such products as Norton Utilities and similar
products. This will decrease accessibility to the data until such time
as the formal destruction procedures are implemented."

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

DoD requires physical destruction at a secure facility
even after erasure. See:
http://www.defenselink.mil/nii/org/cio/doc/computerdisposal.doc

To quote:
"system administrators are highly encouraged to perform overwrite
or 'wipe disk' procedures on functioning disk drives before CPUs
are turned in for disposal by using a pseudo-random overwrite utility
that is available with such products as Norton Utilities and similar
products. This will decrease accessibility to the data until such time
as the formal destruction procedures are implemented."

*TimDaniels*

That they have a procedure for destruction of drives is no
evidence that they (or anyone else) can recover data from
properly wiped drives.

Like anything else, this is your tax money at work.
Conservate practices that satisfy the non-technically
inclined supervisors include simplistic concepts like "if
the drive is completely destroyed... (there's no drive to
recover anything from in any possible sense).

For all your going on about this, even now your ideas about
"destruction" are pointless. Similar to how one could argue
that a wipe isn't enough, similarly someone could make
preposterous claims that bashing a drive with a hammer, or
burning, drilling, etc, is still not enough... that someday,
some grand idealistic concept of what the future might
bring, might allow that physically destroyed drive to be
analyzed and data recovered.

Bottom line- you have zero evidence that it's possible. No
ramblings about something mankind will do in the future
changes this. In the future why would they not simply drug
you, tap into your brain with electrodes or other means and
not bother with the drive at all?

You have no point and are just too thick to accept it.
There is no reason to believe the data can be recovered.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

That they have a procedure for destruction of drives is no
evidence that they (or anyone else) can recover data from
properly wiped drives.

Like anything else, this is your tax money at work.
[..........]
Bottom line- you have zero evidence that it's possible.
[..........]
There is no reason to believe the data can be recovered.

Organizations secure against what they know is possible
or conceivable. If that is considered a waste of resources
by you, security for you *is* a waste of resources.

*TimDaniels*

 

[kony]

That they have a procedure for destruction of drives is no
evidence that they (or anyone else) can recover data from
properly wiped drives.

Like anything else, this is your tax money at work.
[..........]
Bottom line- you have zero evidence that it's possible.
[..........]
There is no reason to believe the data can be recovered.

Organizations secure against what they know is possible
or conceivable. If that is considered a waste of resources
by you, security for you *is* a waste of resources.

So you're an adovcate of tin-foil hats too I suppose.

It's "conceivable" that if someone wanted your data THAT
badly, they'd simply kill you on the way to the destruction
facility, so among your suggestions (and a tin-foil hat),
don't forget to mention armed guards, armored car, etc.

I am an advocate of security, not stupidity, ignorance, or
waste of resources. Go ahead and pretend it helps if you're
really that paranoid, but until you find any evidence that
it's even remotely possible, your actions are not based on
reality, nor even solid science, and nonsense blurbs about
"security ... waste of time" just look foolish.

 

[w_tom]

The loss of one digital bit is a major loss of the entire
data packet. Loss of a number of bits cannot be recovered
using error correction techniques. But an audio recording
routinely has lost 'data bits'. Its called noise. Even with
all that lost data (noise), the analog recording is still
quite easily understood. Analog data stored magnetically on
Nixon's tapes still cannot be restored. Then digital data -
without all the redundancy found in analog stored data - is
even harder to recover.

Tim - you should know this. Analog recordings are so much
easier to recover for so many reasons - including so much of
the data is redundant. And still Nixon's (alleged) single
erasures of that tape have not been recovered. Why do you
think digital data can be recovered easier - and with less
cost - and with less advanced equipment? Meanwhile you have
also assumed one knows exactly which disk to try to recover
data from - to spend those $millions.

Above alone makes it all but impossible to recover the
data. Then we make it even more difficult to recover that
digital data. We overwrite that data multiple times.