Really erase a drive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walter
  • Start date Start date
W

Walter

I used Summit's Hard Disk Scrubber on a hard drive after deleting files and
directories and then emptying the recycling bin. I used the 3 pass heavy
scrub and then cleared the empty space. BUT, after all of that, I was still
able to recovery many of the files using RSTUDIO. What am I missing? I
don't want to wipe the whole drive, I just want the things I have
intentionally deleted to be unrecoverable. Is this possible?

Thanks,

Walter
 
Walter said:
I used Summit's Hard Disk Scrubber on a hard drive after deleting
files and directories and then emptying the recycling bin. I used the
3 pass heavy scrub and then cleared the empty space. BUT, after all
of that, I was still able to recovery many of the files using
RSTUDIO. What am I missing? I don't want to wipe the whole drive, I
just want the things I have intentionally deleted to be
unrecoverable. Is this possible?
Click to expand...

Were you able to recover the files themselves 100%, or could you just
see the filenames in the recovery program ?

Maybe you used the wrong option in Hard Disk Scrubber?
 
Were you able to recover the files themselves 100%, or could you just
see the filenames in the recovery program ?
Click to expand...

I actually recovered them and could use them as if they had never been
erased.

I used the scrub free space option with the 3 pass heavy scrub option. I
did this more than once, so I was really surprised that I could recover
anything at all.
 
Previously Walter said:
I used Summit's Hard Disk Scrubber on a hard drive after deleting files and
directories and then emptying the recycling bin. I used the 3 pass heavy
scrub and then cleared the empty space. BUT, after all of that, I was still
able to recovery many of the files using RSTUDIO. What am I missing? I
don't want to wipe the whole drive, I just want the things I have
intentionally deleted to be unrecoverable. Is this possible?
Click to expand...

First, I suspect that this is one more "snake-oil" security product,
that does not perform as advertised. Most users cannot tell the
difference anyways. A single real overwrite makes software recovery
completely impossible. However there is the risk of damaging files,
especially with a not publicly documented filesystem like NTFS. So the
vendor may just have chosen to fake the deletion.

The usual way to delete individual files is by overwriting. Unless you
have a journalling filesystem, that does it. Personally I use "wipe"
for that, which is free, but UNIX only AFAIK. There might be ports to
other OSes. The other option you have is to make a backup, completely
erase the partition by overwriting and then restore the data. This is
the most reliable option but also one that is not very user friendly.

Arno
 
Arno Wagner said:
First, I suspect that this is one more "snake-oil" security product,
that does not perform as advertised. Most users cannot tell the
difference anyways. A single real overwrite makes software recovery
completely impossible. However there is the risk of damaging files,
especially with a not publicly documented filesystem like NTFS. So the
vendor may just have chosen to fake the deletion.
Click to expand...

It would be trivially easy to write a script to use up all the
free space with files (random content), then delete them.
Result: 99% of free space cleared.
 
Mike Redrobe said:
It would be trivially easy to write a script to use up all the
free space with files (random content), then delete them.
Result: 99% of free space cleared.
Click to expand...

I hold a patent on the process of filling the entire free space of a storage
medium with random data (US registered patent 5,809,138, from Sep. 15, '98).
The process original purpose was to prevent the medium from becoming the carrier
of a virus.

Regards, Zvi
 
It would be trivially easy to write a script to use up all the
free space with files (random content), then delete them.
Result: 99% of free space cleared.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. I actually use this from time to time. Under
Linux a single file is enough today. However there are some
risks and it is slow with a lot of free space.

Arno
 
I hold a patent on the process of filling the entire free space of a
storage medium with random data (US registered patent 5,809,138,
from Sep. 15, '98). The process original purpose was to prevent the
medium from becoming the carrier of a virus.
Click to expand...

Well, it you are in a part of the world without patents on obvious
things, ignore this one. If not, just use zeroes for overwriting, it
works as well. Zvi: I hope you realise that this is not even funny,
but just pathetic.

Arno
 
Mike Redrobe said:
It would be trivially easy to write a script to use up all the
free space with files (random content), then delete them.
Result: 99% of free space cleared.
Click to expand...
There is no difference between writing zeros and random bits.

This feature is already part of Win 2K/XP: cipher /w:X:
 
Arno Wagner said:
Well, it you are in a part of the world without patents on obvious
things, ignore this one. If not, just use zeroes for overwriting, it
works as well. Zvi: I hope you realise that this is not even funny,
but just pathetic.
Click to expand...

a) I brought this here just as a curiosity, nothing else was implied. ;)

b) Patents are often about obvious things as this is the only way to secure
intellectual property.

c) I patented the process at that time because I thought it could have a
commercial implementation.

BTW, the patent is about filling the media, whether the filler is random data or
else isn't an issue. Yet you have my promise that I won't sue you if you fill
your drive with either. ;-)

Regards, Zvi
 
a) I brought this here just as a curiosity, nothing else was implied. ;)
O.k.

b) Patents are often about obvious things as this is the only way to secure
intellectual property.
Click to expand...

I think it is not beneficial to have the possibility to secure
obvious IP, since people will think of it independently all
the time.
c) I patented the process at that time because I thought it could have a
commercial implementation.
Click to expand...

What, "cat /dev/zero > /home/filler.tmp; rm -f /home/filler.tmp" ?
BTW, the patent is about filling the media, whether the filler is
random data or else isn't an issue. Yet you have my promise that I
won't sue you if you fill your drive with either. ;-)
Click to expand...

In return I will not attempt to kill your patent ;-)

Arno
 
Zvi said:
I hold a patent on the process of filling the entire free space of a
storage medium with random data (US registered patent 5,809,138, from Sep.
15, '98). The process original purpose was to prevent the medium from
becoming the carrier of a virus.
Click to expand...

You actually got a patent on choking a disk? Seriously? Now why, oh why are
you not sueing every spammer in Christendom (as well as all the ones in
Islamdom and Hindudom and Godless Red Menacedom and wherever else they are
 
Arno said:
I think it is not beneficial to have the possibility to secure
obvious IP, since people will think of it independently all
the time.
Click to expand...

One of the criteria is that the technique not be "obvious to one practiced
in the art" or words to that effect. The Patent Office does not check this
one too closely--they leave that decision up to the courts, and so obvious
things get patented.

I think we can fairly say that "one practiced in the art" finds the notion
of filling up the free space on a disk to be pretty obvious.
 
Eric said:
There is no difference between writing zeros and random bits.
Click to expand...

Hmm, the very tool you yourself mention below does 3 passes:
writes zeros, writes ones, then random bits.
This feature is already part of Win 2K/XP: cipher /w:X:
Click to expand...

Didn't know that, thanks.
 
:
:>
:>>> > I hold a patent on the process of filling the entire free space of a
:>>> > storage medium with random data (US registered patent 5,809,138,
:>>> > from Sep. 15, '98). The process original purpose was to prevent the
:>>> > medium from becoming the carrier of a virus.
:>>>
:>>> Well, it you are in a part of the world without patents on obvious
:>>> things, ignore this one. If not, just use zeroes for overwriting, it
:>>> works as well. Zvi: I hope you realise that this is not even funny,
:>>> but just pathetic.
:>
:>> a) I brought this here just as a curiosity, nothing else was implied. ;)
:>
:> O.k.
:>
:>> b) Patents are often about obvious things as this is the only way to
:>> secure intellectual property.
:>
:> I think it is not beneficial to have the possibility to secure
:> obvious IP, since people will think of it independently all
:> the time.
:
:One of the criteria is that the technique not be "obvious to one practiced
:in the art" or words to that effect. The Patent Office does not check this
:one too closely--they leave that decision up to the courts, and so obvious
:things get patented.
:
:I think we can fairly say that "one practiced in the art" finds the notion
:of filling up the free space on a disk to be pretty obvious.

Norton Utilities included a function to do exactly that well prior to
the above 1998 patent date.

The U.S. Patent Office actually boasts that over 95% of patent
applications are granted -- like that was a _good_ thing. They grant
basically anything (perpetual motion machines being a notable exception)
and leave it to the courts to straighten out the mess.
 
Previously Robert Nichols said:
:
:>
:>>> > I hold a patent on the process of filling the entire free space of a
:>>> > storage medium with random data (US registered patent 5,809,138,
:>>> > from Sep. 15, '98). The process original purpose was to prevent the
:>>> > medium from becoming the carrier of a virus.
:>>>
:>>> Well, it you are in a part of the world without patents on obvious
:>>> things, ignore this one. If not, just use zeroes for overwriting, it
:>>> works as well. Zvi: I hope you realise that this is not even funny,
:>>> but just pathetic.
:>
:>> a) I brought this here just as a curiosity, nothing else was implied. ;)
:>
:> O.k.
:>
:>> b) Patents are often about obvious things as this is the only way to
:>> secure intellectual property.
:>
:> I think it is not beneficial to have the possibility to secure
:> obvious IP, since people will think of it independently all
:> the time.
:
:One of the criteria is that the technique not be "obvious to one practiced
:in the art" or words to that effect. The Patent Office does not check this
:one too closely--they leave that decision up to the courts, and so obvious
:things get patented.
:
:I think we can fairly say that "one practiced in the art" finds the notion
:of filling up the free space on a disk to be pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

And on can fairly say that the patent office needs to catch these or
it becomes comletely useless.
Norton Utilities included a function to do exactly that well prior to
the above 1998 patent date.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Patent Office actually boasts that over 95% of patent
applications are granted -- like that was a _good_ thing. They grant
basically anything (perpetual motion machines being a notable exception)
Click to expand...

Strange, How did they found out about that? Public humiliation? ;-)
and leave it to the courts to straighten out the mess.
Click to expand...

Yes, and get more money and power for themselves. After all
bureaucracies do not care about doing thing right. They care
about growing and getting more funds. I think it might be a
good thing for the US economy to completely replace the personell
of the US patent office and I mean in a way that nobody can
stay or ever again can be in any bureaucrat position. These people
obviously have completely degraded into parasites.

Arno
 
Previously J. Clarke said:
Zvi Netiv wrote:
Click to expand...
You actually got a patent on choking a disk? Seriously? Now why, oh why are
you not sueing every spammer in Christendom (as well as all the ones in
Islamdom and Hindudom and Godless Red Menacedom and wherever else they are
hiding) for infringement? <eg>
Click to expand...

Good idea! Finally some useful and moral use of an obvious patent!

Arno
 
Back
Top