In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
LINE...
What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
It's not...LEARN...
Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
properly...
But I doubt that...
Therefore the BOTTOM LINE we are talking about that people don't seem
to get or understand, that we are talking about are the 'Number of
Passes' to wipe out something from being recoverable...BOTTOM
LINE...NO...!
If CCleaner does it's job, then there is nothing better, it's all
hype...
> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>
> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
> LINE...
>
> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
>
> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
> It's not...LEARN...
>
> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
> properly...
>
> But I doubt that...
>
> Therefore the BOTTOM LINE we are talking about that people don't seem
> to get or understand, that we are talking about are the 'Number of
> Passes' to wipe out something from being recoverable...BOTTOM
> LINE...NO...!
>
> If CCleaner does it's job, then there is nothing better, it's all
> hype...
>
> THANKS
Hey There DasFox
I think there is a thread or 2 where you tested various secure
deletion software. While CCleaner if i remember correctly, deleted
the file, the "file name" could still be recovered and these days,
that's probably enough evidence to bag you
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:02:06 -0500, Nathan See wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>
>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>>
>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
>> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
>> LINE...
>>
>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
>>
>> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
>> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
>> It's not...LEARN...
>>
>> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
>> properly...
>>
>> But I doubt that...
>>
>> Therefore the BOTTOM LINE we are talking about that people don't seem
>> to get or understand, that we are talking about are the 'Number of
>> Passes' to wipe out something from being recoverable...BOTTOM
>> LINE...NO...!
>>
>> If CCleaner does it's job, then there is nothing better, it's all
>> hype...
>>
>> THANKS
>
> Hey There DasFox
>
> I think there is a thread or 2 where you tested various secure
> deletion software. While CCleaner if i remember correctly, deleted
> the file, the "file name" could still be recovered and these days,
> that's probably enough evidence to bag you
Hey SEE
Look at the URL for the screen shot, for the secure file deletion...
CCleaner has four methods of secure deletion: a Simple Overwrite (1
pass), DOD 5220.22-M (3 passes), NSA (7 passes), and Gutmann (35
passes). A 'pass' refers to how many times CCleaner writes over the
spot on the hard drive. The more times CCleaner writes to that spot,
the harder the file will be to recover BY ANY MEANS...MORE IS BETTER
than Less...
> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>
> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
> LINE...
>
> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All they do is
overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of funny when everyone
gets in a war about which is better.
--
Screw the socialist blue-eyed Skindonavian arsewholes.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:06:15 -0500, chronomatic wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>
>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>>
>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
>> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
>> LINE...
>>
>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
>
> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All they do is
> overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of funny when everyone
> gets in a war about which is better.
Just like chronomatic has said, there is nothing special about any of
them, they all do the same thing.
chronomatic <chronomatic@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:iit7c6$k73$1@speranza.aioe.org:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>
>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH
>> APPROVED...
>>
>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is
>> suppose to do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there
>> is to it, BOTTOM LINE...
>>
>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales
>> BS...!
>
> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All
> they do is overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of
> funny when everyone gets in a war about which is better.
DasFox is, as usual, a moron. There is a major difference
between good & bad erasers. It's not regarding erasing the
data but rather the **metadata**.
With NTFS file systems a great deal of information *about* a
file is stored inside the MFT (and the "zone" and any
extensions) - name, dates, attributes, and various "extents."
That data is not erased when a file is erased (even if
overwritten a hundred times!). Nope, that metadata lingers
(until space needed for reuse). And the internal structure of
the MFT is - ahem! - somewhat murky.
In fact, it gets worse - much worse! The NTFS file system
stores, not just metadata, but the *entire file* in the MFT if
a file (and its attributes) is smaller than about 4K (ie., the
"data" extent is NOT always stored external to the MFT!).
Those small files stored in the MFT are often missed by poor
erasers!
Even metadata left over can be very incriminating (files names
& dates, etc.) - but if that metadata also contains the actual
real data (as it can for a small file) it gets even deadlier.
There are a few erasers which acually do a proper job of
cleaning up the leftover MFT metadata. They also can handle
stuff like leftover data lingering in the "file tips" of other
files, etc. One of these "good erasers" is BCwipe (from
Jetico, the makers of Bestcrypt). I have personally confirmed
(using Encase and other forensic utilities) that BCWipe scrubs
everything. There are a few other good ones as well - and a
whole lot of bad ones!
All erasers are NOT created equal!
_____________________
With that said, however, I am totally against using erasers -
even good ones. Here's why:
1) It is next to impossible to *fully* know where data and
metadata has leaked, particularly with Windows. No list of
possible places (registry entries, temporary files, program
configurations, and on and on) is likely to be sufficiently
complete (for instance, Flash stores a list of every website
you have visited where Flash was used) . And even if somehow
you did make a "perfect and complete" list of places and
things to scrub where the OS and programs had leaked them, it
might only take a minor program upgrade to an existing program
or the installation of some obscure program uncatalogued by
your scrubber/eraser to create a new unknown leak.
2) Many erasers don't get everything as discussed in the
first section of this post.
3) Erasing takes a long time to do right - many hours on a
large HD if erased space, files tips are done - as they should
be! That leaves a window of *many hours* after a computing
session when the computer is exceedingly vulnerable to
compromise (e.g., by a no-knock raid). And because scrubbing
takes long tedious hours, it is next to certain that you won't
be in front of it while it does the scrubbing - a big lapse in
security to leave a running machine unattended.
4) Once again, because scrubbing is slow and tedious, few
will have the discipline to do it as often as it should be
done. Most will be lax and do it only sporadically, if at
all. (One has only to consider how few folks do regular
backups to accept this "lack of self-discipline" point.)
In short, erasing/scrubbing is a fool's game: thoroughness
uncertain, impossible to fully verify, tedious, slow and
conducive to bad security habits (e.g., leaving a running
machine unattended).
So what is the answer then?
Full disk encryption!
No need to scrub because there's no place for data - or
metadata - to leak. Also no need for long lists of potential
leak places. Nope, just instant rock-solid TOTAL data lockdown
by turning off the big red switch! And it also means you can
be right there to hit that switch! No worries about no-knock
raids, etc. (1)
Regards,
PS With full disk encryption you also get the benefit that
there's no place to insert a software keylogger, a trojan, or
a modified file anywhere on your system (with a minor caveat
re MBR and "evil maid"). No one can - meaningfully - change
any file on your system.
They can, of course, destructively *clobber* files - or rather
sectors since they don't know where particular files are
stored - but that's a different matter.
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:02:06 -0500, Nathan See
> <nathan_c@wildersecurity.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>
>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
>>> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
>>> LINE...
>>>
>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
>>>
>>> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
>>> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
>>> It's not...LEARN...
>>>
>>> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
>>> properly...
>>>
>>> But I doubt that...
>>>
>>> Therefore the BOTTOM LINE we are talking about that people don't seem
>>> to get or understand, that we are talking about are the 'Number of
>>> Passes' to wipe out something from being recoverable...BOTTOM
>>> LINE...NO...!
>>>
>>> If CCleaner does it's job, then there is nothing better, it's all
>>> hype...
>>>
>>> THANKS
>>
>>
>>Hey There DasFox
>>
>>I think there is a thread or 2 where you tested various secure
>>deletion software. While CCleaner if i remember correctly, deleted
>>the file, the "file name" could still be recovered and these days,
>>that's probably enough evidence to bag you
>
> Eraser jumbles the filename into an unrecognizable bunch of
> characters. You're safe in that regard.
>
> http://eraser.heidi.ie/
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
> chronomatic <chronomatic@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:iit7c6$k73$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>
>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH
>>> APPROVED...
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is
>>> suppose to do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there
>>> is to it, BOTTOM LINE...
>>>
>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales
>>> BS...!
>>
>> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All
>> they do is overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of
>> funny when everyone gets in a war about which is better.
>
> DasFox is, as usual, a moron. There is a major difference
> between good & bad erasers. It's not regarding erasing the
> data but rather the **metadata**.
The program I use (if I ever need one) is BCWipe. My HexEditor
provides the necessary functions, as well. Efficient erasing of files
on Windows setups is best done from the outside (e.g. Linux), anyway.
Because Windows prevents a lot of required access for complete
check/wipes.
> With NTFS file systems a great deal of information *about* a
> file is stored inside the MFT (and the "zone" and any
> extensions) - name, dates, attributes, and various "extents."
> That data is not erased when a file is erased (even if
> overwritten a hundred times!). Nope, that metadata lingers
> (until space needed for reuse). And the internal structure of
> the MFT is - ahem! - somewhat murky.
>
> In fact, it gets worse - much worse! The NTFS file system
> stores, not just metadata, but the *entire file* in the MFT if
> a file (and its attributes) is smaller than about 4K (ie., the
> "data" extent is NOT always stored external to the MFT!).
> Those small files stored in the MFT are often missed by poor
> erasers!
>
> Even metadata left over can be very incriminating (files names
> & dates, etc.) - but if that metadata also contains the actual
> real data (as it can for a small file) it gets even deadlier.
>
> There are a few erasers which acually do a proper job of
> cleaning up the leftover MFT metadata. They also can handle
> stuff like leftover data lingering in the "file tips" of other
> files, etc. One of these "good erasers" is BCwipe (from
> Jetico, the makers of Bestcrypt). I have personally confirmed
> (using Encase and other forensic utilities) that BCWipe scrubs
> everything. There are a few other good ones as well - and a
> whole lot of bad ones!
>
> All erasers are NOT created equal!
The steps necessary depend on the kind of data, the steps used to get
/ view / modify it. And so on. Apart from the above, remnants of
caches (nowadays maybe even on readyboost storage [until the
now-empty space is filled with other data]), backups/archives, memory
(until restart), swap files, hibernation file, file system journal,
registry (including dialog box history), recycle bin (deleted, but
not wiped versions or copies),... have to be considered, as well.
For the highest level of security (and I don't intend this as a
joke!), get the data (if it still is required) to an external
storage, wipe the whole system (complete partitions,...) and set it
up anew. Don't forget to destroy all backups, including those which
contain earlier versions of the data or raw data, that can be used to
recreate your sensitive data.
Even better is handling sensitive data by using read-only systems,
like a Linux distribution booted from DVD to RAM on a system without
harddrive. The sensitive data in question can be supplied by
externally kept media.
> _____________________
>
> With that said, however, I am totally against using erasers -
> even good ones. Here's why:
>
> 1) It is next to impossible to *fully* know where data and
> metadata has leaked, particularly with Windows. No list of
> possible places (registry entries, temporary files, program
> configurations, and on and on) is likely to be sufficiently
> complete (for instance, Flash stores a list of every website
> you have visited where Flash was used) . And even if somehow
> you did make a "perfect and complete" list of places and
> things to scrub where the OS and programs had leaked them, it
> might only take a minor program upgrade to an existing program
> or the installation of some obscure program uncatalogued by
> your scrubber/eraser to create a new unknown leak.
>
> 2) Many erasers don't get everything as discussed in the
> first section of this post.
>
> 3) Erasing takes a long time to do right - many hours on a
> large HD if erased space, files tips are done - as they should
> be! That leaves a window of *many hours* after a computing
> session when the computer is exceedingly vulnerable to
> compromise (e.g., by a no-knock raid). And because scrubbing
> takes long tedious hours, it is next to certain that you won't
> be in front of it while it does the scrubbing - a big lapse in
> security to leave a running machine unattended.
>
> 4) Once again, because scrubbing is slow and tedious, few
> will have the discipline to do it as often as it should be
> done. Most will be lax and do it only sporadically, if at
> all. (One has only to consider how few folks do regular
> backups to accept this "lack of self-discipline" point.)
>
> In short, erasing/scrubbing is a fool's game: thoroughness
> uncertain, impossible to fully verify, tedious, slow and
> conducive to bad security habits (e.g., leaving a running
> machine unattended).
>
> So what is the answer then?
>
> Full disk encryption!
>
> No need to scrub because there's no place for data - or
> metadata - to leak. Also no need for long lists of potential
> leak places. Nope, just instant rock-solid TOTAL data lockdown
> by turning off the big red switch! And it also means you can
> be right there to hit that switch! No worries about no-knock
> raids, etc. (1)
>
> Regards,
>
> PS With full disk encryption you also get the benefit that
> there's no place to insert a software keylogger, a trojan, or
> a modified file anywhere on your system (with a minor caveat
> re MBR and "evil maid"). No one can - meaningfully - change
> any file on your system.
>
> They can, of course, destructively *clobber* files - or rather
> sectors since they don't know where particular files are
> stored - but that's a different matter.
Usually, this level of security is unnecessary. But wiping of all
known occurrences of the files in question (including temporary
files, archives, and the like) and wiping file slacks and empty space
should be mandatory. As should be setting the ClearPageFileAtShutdown
Registry entry and foregoing the use of hibernate to disk, if
sensitive data is handled on a regular basis.
If this amount of effort seems like to much work, wiping is not
necessary in the first place.
--
For a "quiet interlude"; take a 'Lude.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:47:23 -0500, heirophant wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:29:54 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>>
>>> DasFox is,
>>
>> *PLONK*
>>
>> NOT a CANADIAN *******...
>>
>> THANKS
>
> Little quick on the draw, 'Fox? ;)
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:25:11 -0500, Quaalude wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> chronomatic <chronomatic@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:iit7c6$k73$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH
>>>> APPROVED...
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is
>>>> suppose to do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there
>>>> is to it, BOTTOM LINE...
>>>>
>>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales
>>>> BS...!
>>>
>>> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All
>>> they do is overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of
>>> funny when everyone gets in a war about which is better.
>>
>> DasFox is, as usual, a moron. There is a major difference
>> between good & bad erasers. It's not regarding erasing the
>> data but rather the **metadata**.
>
> The program I use (if I ever need one) is BCWipe. My HexEditor
> provides the necessary functions, as well. Efficient erasing of files
> on Windows setups is best done from the outside (e.g. Linux), anyway.
> Because Windows prevents a lot of required access for complete
> check/wipes.
>
>> With NTFS file systems a great deal of information *about* a
>> file is stored inside the MFT (and the "zone" and any
>> extensions) - name, dates, attributes, and various "extents."
>> That data is not erased when a file is erased (even if
>> overwritten a hundred times!). Nope, that metadata lingers
>> (until space needed for reuse). And the internal structure of
>> the MFT is - ahem! - somewhat murky.
>>
>> In fact, it gets worse - much worse! The NTFS file system
>> stores, not just metadata, but the *entire file* in the MFT if
>> a file (and its attributes) is smaller than about 4K (ie., the
>> "data" extent is NOT always stored external to the MFT!).
>> Those small files stored in the MFT are often missed by poor
>> erasers!
>>
>> Even metadata left over can be very incriminating (files names
>> & dates, etc.) - but if that metadata also contains the actual
>> real data (as it can for a small file) it gets even deadlier.
>>
>> There are a few erasers which acually do a proper job of
>> cleaning up the leftover MFT metadata. They also can handle
>> stuff like leftover data lingering in the "file tips" of other
>> files, etc. One of these "good erasers" is BCwipe (from
>> Jetico, the makers of Bestcrypt). I have personally confirmed
>> (using Encase and other forensic utilities) that BCWipe scrubs
>> everything. There are a few other good ones as well - and a
>> whole lot of bad ones!
>>
>> All erasers are NOT created equal!
>
> The steps necessary depend on the kind of data, the steps used to get
> / view / modify it. And so on. Apart from the above, remnants of
> caches (nowadays maybe even on readyboost storage [until the
> now-empty space is filled with other data]), backups/archives, memory
> (until restart), swap files, hibernation file, file system journal,
> registry (including dialog box history), recycle bin (deleted, but
> not wiped versions or copies),... have to be considered, as well.
>
> For the highest level of security (and I don't intend this as a
> joke!), get the data (if it still is required) to an external
> storage, wipe the whole system (complete partitions,...) and set it
> up anew. Don't forget to destroy all backups, including those which
> contain earlier versions of the data or raw data, that can be used to
> recreate your sensitive data.
>
> Even better is handling sensitive data by using read-only systems,
> like a Linux distribution booted from DVD to RAM on a system without
> harddrive. The sensitive data in question can be supplied by
> externally kept media.
>
>> _____________________
>>
>> With that said, however, I am totally against using erasers -
>> even good ones. Here's why:
>>
>> 1) It is next to impossible to *fully* know where data and
>> metadata has leaked, particularly with Windows. No list of
>> possible places (registry entries, temporary files, program
>> configurations, and on and on) is likely to be sufficiently
>> complete (for instance, Flash stores a list of every website
>> you have visited where Flash was used) . And even if somehow
>> you did make a "perfect and complete" list of places and
>> things to scrub where the OS and programs had leaked them, it
>> might only take a minor program upgrade to an existing program
>> or the installation of some obscure program uncatalogued by
>> your scrubber/eraser to create a new unknown leak.
>>
>> 2) Many erasers don't get everything as discussed in the
>> first section of this post.
>>
>> 3) Erasing takes a long time to do right - many hours on a
>> large HD if erased space, files tips are done - as they should
>> be! That leaves a window of *many hours* after a computing
>> session when the computer is exceedingly vulnerable to
>> compromise (e.g., by a no-knock raid). And because scrubbing
>> takes long tedious hours, it is next to certain that you won't
>> be in front of it while it does the scrubbing - a big lapse in
>> security to leave a running machine unattended.
>>
>> 4) Once again, because scrubbing is slow and tedious, few
>> will have the discipline to do it as often as it should be
>> done. Most will be lax and do it only sporadically, if at
>> all. (One has only to consider how few folks do regular
>> backups to accept this "lack of self-discipline" point.)
>>
>> In short, erasing/scrubbing is a fool's game: thoroughness
>> uncertain, impossible to fully verify, tedious, slow and
>> conducive to bad security habits (e.g., leaving a running
>> machine unattended).
>>
>> So what is the answer then?
>>
>> Full disk encryption!
>>
>> No need to scrub because there's no place for data - or
>> metadata - to leak. Also no need for long lists of potential
>> leak places. Nope, just instant rock-solid TOTAL data lockdown
>> by turning off the big red switch! And it also means you can
>> be right there to hit that switch! No worries about no-knock
>> raids, etc. (1)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> PS With full disk encryption you also get the benefit that
>> there's no place to insert a software keylogger, a trojan, or
>> a modified file anywhere on your system (with a minor caveat
>> re MBR and "evil maid"). No one can - meaningfully - change
>> any file on your system.
>>
>> They can, of course, destructively *clobber* files - or rather
>> sectors since they don't know where particular files are
>> stored - but that's a different matter.
>
> Usually, this level of security is unnecessary. But wiping of all
> known occurrences of the files in question (including temporary
> files, archives, and the like) and wiping file slacks and empty space
> should be mandatory. As should be setting the ClearPageFileAtShutdown
> Registry entry and foregoing the use of hibernate to disk, if
> sensitive data is handled on a regular basis.
>
> If this amount of effort seems like to much work, wiping is not
> necessary in the first place.
I would disagree with both nemo and Quaalude.
Any distinct file rebooting would make either scenario electronically
unrealistic. Simple, typical R/W functions would inherit no similar
quantities.
Why would you expect that either progressions would _not_ be subject
to simple hashing?
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:54:54 -0500, heirophant wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:25:11 -0500, Quaalude wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>>
>>> chronomatic <chronomatic@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:iit7c6$k73$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH
>>>>> APPROVED...
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is
>>>>> suppose to do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there
>>>>> is to it, BOTTOM LINE...
>>>>>
>>>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales
>>>>> BS...!
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All
>>>> they do is overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of
>>>> funny when everyone gets in a war about which is better.
>>>
>>> DasFox is, as usual, a moron. There is a major difference
>>> between good & bad erasers. It's not regarding erasing the
>>> data but rather the **metadata**.
>>
>> The program I use (if I ever need one) is BCWipe. My HexEditor
>> provides the necessary functions, as well. Efficient erasing of files
>> on Windows setups is best done from the outside (e.g. Linux), anyway.
>> Because Windows prevents a lot of required access for complete
>> check/wipes.
>>
>>> With NTFS file systems a great deal of information *about* a
>>> file is stored inside the MFT (and the "zone" and any
>>> extensions) - name, dates, attributes, and various "extents."
>>> That data is not erased when a file is erased (even if
>>> overwritten a hundred times!). Nope, that metadata lingers
>>> (until space needed for reuse). And the internal structure of
>>> the MFT is - ahem! - somewhat murky.
>>>
>>> In fact, it gets worse - much worse! The NTFS file system
>>> stores, not just metadata, but the *entire file* in the MFT if
>>> a file (and its attributes) is smaller than about 4K (ie., the
>>> "data" extent is NOT always stored external to the MFT!).
>>> Those small files stored in the MFT are often missed by poor
>>> erasers!
>>>
>>> Even metadata left over can be very incriminating (files names
>>> & dates, etc.) - but if that metadata also contains the actual
>>> real data (as it can for a small file) it gets even deadlier.
>>>
>>> There are a few erasers which acually do a proper job of
>>> cleaning up the leftover MFT metadata. They also can handle
>>> stuff like leftover data lingering in the "file tips" of other
>>> files, etc. One of these "good erasers" is BCwipe (from
>>> Jetico, the makers of Bestcrypt). I have personally confirmed
>>> (using Encase and other forensic utilities) that BCWipe scrubs
>>> everything. There are a few other good ones as well - and a
>>> whole lot of bad ones!
>>>
>>> All erasers are NOT created equal!
>>
>> The steps necessary depend on the kind of data, the steps used to get
>> / view / modify it. And so on. Apart from the above, remnants of
>> caches (nowadays maybe even on readyboost storage [until the
>> now-empty space is filled with other data]), backups/archives, memory
>> (until restart), swap files, hibernation file, file system journal,
>> registry (including dialog box history), recycle bin (deleted, but
>> not wiped versions or copies),... have to be considered, as well.
>>
>> For the highest level of security (and I don't intend this as a
>> joke!), get the data (if it still is required) to an external
>> storage, wipe the whole system (complete partitions,...) and set it
>> up anew. Don't forget to destroy all backups, including those which
>> contain earlier versions of the data or raw data, that can be used to
>> recreate your sensitive data.
>>
>> Even better is handling sensitive data by using read-only systems,
>> like a Linux distribution booted from DVD to RAM on a system without
>> harddrive. The sensitive data in question can be supplied by
>> externally kept media.
>>
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>> With that said, however, I am totally against using erasers -
>>> even good ones. Here's why:
>>>
>>> 1) It is next to impossible to *fully* know where data and
>>> metadata has leaked, particularly with Windows. No list of
>>> possible places (registry entries, temporary files, program
>>> configurations, and on and on) is likely to be sufficiently
>>> complete (for instance, Flash stores a list of every website
>>> you have visited where Flash was used) . And even if somehow
>>> you did make a "perfect and complete" list of places and
>>> things to scrub where the OS and programs had leaked them, it
>>> might only take a minor program upgrade to an existing program
>>> or the installation of some obscure program uncatalogued by
>>> your scrubber/eraser to create a new unknown leak.
>>>
>>> 2) Many erasers don't get everything as discussed in the
>>> first section of this post.
>>>
>>> 3) Erasing takes a long time to do right - many hours on a
>>> large HD if erased space, files tips are done - as they should
>>> be! That leaves a window of *many hours* after a computing
>>> session when the computer is exceedingly vulnerable to
>>> compromise (e.g., by a no-knock raid). And because scrubbing
>>> takes long tedious hours, it is next to certain that you won't
>>> be in front of it while it does the scrubbing - a big lapse in
>>> security to leave a running machine unattended.
>>>
>>> 4) Once again, because scrubbing is slow and tedious, few
>>> will have the discipline to do it as often as it should be
>>> done. Most will be lax and do it only sporadically, if at
>>> all. (One has only to consider how few folks do regular
>>> backups to accept this "lack of self-discipline" point.)
>>>
>>> In short, erasing/scrubbing is a fool's game: thoroughness
>>> uncertain, impossible to fully verify, tedious, slow and
>>> conducive to bad security habits (e.g., leaving a running
>>> machine unattended).
>>>
>>> So what is the answer then?
>>>
>>> Full disk encryption!
>>>
>>> No need to scrub because there's no place for data - or
>>> metadata - to leak. Also no need for long lists of potential
>>> leak places. Nope, just instant rock-solid TOTAL data lockdown
>>> by turning off the big red switch! And it also means you can
>>> be right there to hit that switch! No worries about no-knock
>>> raids, etc. (1)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> PS With full disk encryption you also get the benefit that
>>> there's no place to insert a software keylogger, a trojan, or
>>> a modified file anywhere on your system (with a minor caveat
>>> re MBR and "evil maid"). No one can - meaningfully - change
>>> any file on your system.
>>>
>>> They can, of course, destructively *clobber* files - or rather
>>> sectors since they don't know where particular files are
>>> stored - but that's a different matter.
>>
>> Usually, this level of security is unnecessary. But wiping of all
>> known occurrences of the files in question (including temporary
>> files, archives, and the like) and wiping file slacks and empty space
>> should be mandatory. As should be setting the ClearPageFileAtShutdown
>> Registry entry and foregoing the use of hibernate to disk, if
>> sensitive data is handled on a regular basis.
>>
>> If this amount of effort seems like to much work, wiping is not
>> necessary in the first place.
>
> I would disagree with both nemo and Quaalude.
>
> Any distinct file rebooting would make either scenario electronically
> unrealistic. Simple, typical R/W functions would inherit no similar
> quantities.
>
> Why would you expect that either progressions would _not_ be subject
> to simple hashing?
>
> For instance, take a HD field with quantitatively sectored data spree.
> Gutmann solves that? I don't think so.
What are you going to do with the invalid rebuild data?
--
For a "quiet interlude"; take a 'Lude.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:59:19 -0500, Quaalude wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:54:54 -0500, heirophant wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:25:11 -0500, Quaalude wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>>>
>>>> chronomatic <chronomatic@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:iit7c6$k73$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH
>>>>>> APPROVED...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is
>>>>>> suppose to do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there
>>>>>> is to it, BOTTOM LINE...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales
>>>>>> BS...!
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing magical about these file eraser/wipers. All
>>>>> they do is overwrite with random data. So I find it sort of
>>>>> funny when everyone gets in a war about which is better.
>>>>
>>>> DasFox is, as usual, a moron. There is a major difference
>>>> between good & bad erasers. It's not regarding erasing the
>>>> data but rather the **metadata**.
>>>
>>> The program I use (if I ever need one) is BCWipe. My HexEditor
>>> provides the necessary functions, as well. Efficient erasing of files
>>> on Windows setups is best done from the outside (e.g. Linux), anyway.
>>> Because Windows prevents a lot of required access for complete
>>> check/wipes.
>>>
>>>> With NTFS file systems a great deal of information *about* a
>>>> file is stored inside the MFT (and the "zone" and any
>>>> extensions) - name, dates, attributes, and various "extents."
>>>> That data is not erased when a file is erased (even if
>>>> overwritten a hundred times!). Nope, that metadata lingers
>>>> (until space needed for reuse). And the internal structure of
>>>> the MFT is - ahem! - somewhat murky.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it gets worse - much worse! The NTFS file system
>>>> stores, not just metadata, but the *entire file* in the MFT if
>>>> a file (and its attributes) is smaller than about 4K (ie., the
>>>> "data" extent is NOT always stored external to the MFT!).
>>>> Those small files stored in the MFT are often missed by poor
>>>> erasers!
>>>>
>>>> Even metadata left over can be very incriminating (files names
>>>> & dates, etc.) - but if that metadata also contains the actual
>>>> real data (as it can for a small file) it gets even deadlier.
>>>>
>>>> There are a few erasers which acually do a proper job of
>>>> cleaning up the leftover MFT metadata. They also can handle
>>>> stuff like leftover data lingering in the "file tips" of other
>>>> files, etc. One of these "good erasers" is BCwipe (from
>>>> Jetico, the makers of Bestcrypt). I have personally confirmed
>>>> (using Encase and other forensic utilities) that BCWipe scrubs
>>>> everything. There are a few other good ones as well - and a
>>>> whole lot of bad ones!
>>>>
>>>> All erasers are NOT created equal!
>>>
>>> The steps necessary depend on the kind of data, the steps used to get
>>> / view / modify it. And so on. Apart from the above, remnants of
>>> caches (nowadays maybe even on readyboost storage [until the
>>> now-empty space is filled with other data]), backups/archives, memory
>>> (until restart), swap files, hibernation file, file system journal,
>>> registry (including dialog box history), recycle bin (deleted, but
>>> not wiped versions or copies),... have to be considered, as well.
>>>
>>> For the highest level of security (and I don't intend this as a
>>> joke!), get the data (if it still is required) to an external
>>> storage, wipe the whole system (complete partitions,...) and set it
>>> up anew. Don't forget to destroy all backups, including those which
>>> contain earlier versions of the data or raw data, that can be used to
>>> recreate your sensitive data.
>>>
>>> Even better is handling sensitive data by using read-only systems,
>>> like a Linux distribution booted from DVD to RAM on a system without
>>> harddrive. The sensitive data in question can be supplied by
>>> externally kept media.
>>>
>>>> _____________________
>>>>
>>>> With that said, however, I am totally against using erasers -
>>>> even good ones. Here's why:
>>>>
>>>> 1) It is next to impossible to *fully* know where data and
>>>> metadata has leaked, particularly with Windows. No list of
>>>> possible places (registry entries, temporary files, program
>>>> configurations, and on and on) is likely to be sufficiently
>>>> complete (for instance, Flash stores a list of every website
>>>> you have visited where Flash was used) . And even if somehow
>>>> you did make a "perfect and complete" list of places and
>>>> things to scrub where the OS and programs had leaked them, it
>>>> might only take a minor program upgrade to an existing program
>>>> or the installation of some obscure program uncatalogued by
>>>> your scrubber/eraser to create a new unknown leak.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Many erasers don't get everything as discussed in the
>>>> first section of this post.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Erasing takes a long time to do right - many hours on a
>>>> large HD if erased space, files tips are done - as they should
>>>> be! That leaves a window of *many hours* after a computing
>>>> session when the computer is exceedingly vulnerable to
>>>> compromise (e.g., by a no-knock raid). And because scrubbing
>>>> takes long tedious hours, it is next to certain that you won't
>>>> be in front of it while it does the scrubbing - a big lapse in
>>>> security to leave a running machine unattended.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Once again, because scrubbing is slow and tedious, few
>>>> will have the discipline to do it as often as it should be
>>>> done. Most will be lax and do it only sporadically, if at
>>>> all. (One has only to consider how few folks do regular
>>>> backups to accept this "lack of self-discipline" point.)
>>>>
>>>> In short, erasing/scrubbing is a fool's game: thoroughness
>>>> uncertain, impossible to fully verify, tedious, slow and
>>>> conducive to bad security habits (e.g., leaving a running
>>>> machine unattended).
>>>>
>>>> So what is the answer then?
>>>>
>>>> Full disk encryption!
>>>>
>>>> No need to scrub because there's no place for data - or
>>>> metadata - to leak. Also no need for long lists of potential
>>>> leak places. Nope, just instant rock-solid TOTAL data lockdown
>>>> by turning off the big red switch! And it also means you can
>>>> be right there to hit that switch! No worries about no-knock
>>>> raids, etc. (1)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> PS With full disk encryption you also get the benefit that
>>>> there's no place to insert a software keylogger, a trojan, or
>>>> a modified file anywhere on your system (with a minor caveat
>>>> re MBR and "evil maid"). No one can - meaningfully - change
>>>> any file on your system.
>>>>
>>>> They can, of course, destructively *clobber* files - or rather
>>>> sectors since they don't know where particular files are
>>>> stored - but that's a different matter.
>>>
>>> Usually, this level of security is unnecessary. But wiping of all
>>> known occurrences of the files in question (including temporary
>>> files, archives, and the like) and wiping file slacks and empty space
>>> should be mandatory. As should be setting the ClearPageFileAtShutdown
>>> Registry entry and foregoing the use of hibernate to disk, if
>>> sensitive data is handled on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> If this amount of effort seems like to much work, wiping is not
>>> necessary in the first place.
>>
>> I would disagree with both nemo and Quaalude.
>>
>> Any distinct file rebooting would make either scenario electronically
>> unrealistic. Simple, typical R/W functions would inherit no similar
>> quantities.
>>
>> Why would you expect that either progressions would _not_ be subject
>> to simple hashing?
>>
>> For instance, take a HD field with quantitatively sectored data spree.
>> Gutmann solves that? I don't think so.
>
> What are you going to do with the invalid rebuild data?
Quaalude <Quaaludes@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:8retqnFvcsU1@mid.individual.net:
....snip clear and well-made points for brevity...
You have a good grasp of what is required for scrubbing a
drive effectively - in the sense of about as effectively as it
can be done.
However, while I accept that you have a solid grasp of the
required knowledge and (likely) the self-discipline to do a
good job of scrubbing/erasing, that still doesn't address some
of the other major weaknesses of scrubbing:
1) It's slow - on the scale of hours to do right for a large
hard drive. And this creates a long window of vulnerability
after every session (e.g., to a no-knock raid). Even worse
if, due to laxity, scrubbing is only done sporadically.
[In the past I did do several tricks to speed up erasing. For
instance, after a good pre-scrubbing of available space, I
created many very large useless files as space-holders - say,
for illustration, 50 10-GB files, leaving perhaps only 20 GB
free space. This considerably reduced the amount of time
scrubbing unused space after every session. Whenever I needed
more space I simply deleted one or two of the space-holding
files.]
2) You are still susceptible to file system tampering - the
insertion of trojans, software keyloggers, modified
executables, and on and on. Not to mention more subtle
tampering (e.g., changing a few numbers in each spreadsheet,
etc. to wreak havoc months later when it is discovered that
they - and all intervening backups - are corrupt.)
3) Considerable effort must be made to keep one's "scrub
list" up to date. And scripts and schedules must be created
and regularly updated, etc. ...or go the even-more-tedious
manual route :-) And even then one can have misgivings since
"quality control" - verifying the thoroughness and
completeness of the scrubbing - is itself both difficult and
tedious and likely to be done rarely if at all.
Compare and contrast this with full HD encryption:
1) Installation of the encryption program - a one-time
initial effort comparable to installing any other program.
Then a multi-hour delay while the disk is initially encrypted
(although with some encryption programs one can continue to
use the system while this happens).
2) Thereafter, absolutely nothing more is required than
entering a password at boot. Everything proceeds
transparently and conveniently as if there was no encryption.
And the resultant protection and security is infinitely
superior to scrubbing - instant and total. With no misgivings
regarding effectiveness or something being missed. And no need
for special knowledge or iron self-discipline.
So, while you may say that such encryption is generally
unnecessary, it is nonetheless clearly the way to go since,
necessary or not, it is superior to scrubbing for both
security and convenience.
Regards,
PS I will concede one point: full HD encryption makes it
even more imperative to do regular backups. However, one can
almost regard this as a blessing :-) Backups of encrypted
systems take a little more thought and care than ordinary
ones, but not inordinately so.
heirophant <heremypants@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:iitgg0$5k9$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> All erasers are NOT created equal!
>
> You do, of course, know the translation of "heirophant"
> from Latin is "heirophant." [more literally, "heirophantus
> or "heirophant"]
>
> PS "heirophant" is, however, the concatenation of the Latin
> and Greek words for "hero" or "somebody and "phant" or
> "????" ;)
First of all, it's hierophant, not heirophant - you reversed the
e and i. It's all Greek in origin, but it comes to us by way of
(late) Latin.
(h)ieros is (transliterated) Greek for holy or sacred. (I've
put the 'h', the 'rough breathing', in parentheses to emphasize
that it's not a separate character.)
The phant part comes from the (transliterated) Greek verb
phanein - to show or reveal.
So, based on the etymology, a hierophant is a 'revealer of the
sacred'. Reasonably close to its modern meaning: 1) an
expounder of sacred mysteries, esp. in ancient Greece, a
presiding priest, or 2) the minister of any ‘revelation’, the
interpreter of any esoteric principle.
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:45:50 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
> heirophant <heremypants@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:iitgg0$5k9$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:56:00 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>>
>>> All erasers are NOT created equal!
>>
>> You do, of course, know the translation of "heirophant"
>> from Latin is "heirophant." [more literally, "heirophantus
>> or "heirophant"]
>>
>> PS "heirophant" is, however, the concatenation of the Latin
>> and Greek words for "hero" or "somebody and "phant" or
>> "????" ;)
>
> First of all, it's hierophant, not heirophant - you reversed the
> e and i. It's all Greek in origin, but it comes to us by way of
> (late) Latin.
Sir, it is my handle and it serves me as I please. :)
> (h)ieros is (transliterated) Greek for holy or sacred. (I've
> put the 'h', the 'rough breathing', in parentheses to emphasize
> that it's not a separate character.)
>
> The phant part comes from the (transliterated) Greek verb
> phanein - to show or reveal.
>
> So, based on the etymology, a hierophant is a 'revealer of the
> sacred'. Reasonably close to its modern meaning: 1) an
> expounder of sacred mysteries, esp. in ancient Greece, a
> presiding priest, or 2) the minister of any ‘revelation’,
Uh-oh, looks like someone got caught copy'n'pasting ;)
> the
> interpreter of any esoteric principle.
>
> Regards,
I use ubuntu linux and it has a couple of seemingly good ways to
secure your data, including the OS itself. I sometimes wonder how
effective they are.
There are two parts:
1. the home directory is encrypted until you log on and enter a
password. This is built into the OS.
2. there is a linux command, run each night, which writes zeroes to
unused parts of a partition, putting the unused part into a file.
You then delete the file. If someone tries to recover it, he sees
all zeroes, supposedly.
The command is: cat /dev/zero > /partition/file; rm /partition/file
I back up the home directory each night to an external hard drive
encrypted as a truecrypt partition, so I assume that that is
protected.
I am not sure sure about the 'cat /dev/zero' command, or how well
the home directory is protected by the logon password.
This is a desktop computer at a secure location. I realize it is a
different ballgame if you are talking about a laptop or a computer
that can be accessed by others.
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:15:24 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
> Quaalude <Quaaludes@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:8retqnFvcsU1@mid.individual.net:
>
> ...snip clear and well-made points for brevity...
>
> You have a good grasp of what is required for scrubbing a
> drive effectively - in the sense of about as effectively as it
> can be done.
Mr. outis, although it is good to see your control your sharp Jesuit
tongue for the good of the newsgroup, :) I also read Mr. Quaalude's
response and found it interestingly disjointed. You said "horse", he
responded "heroin" :(
I would agree that Mr. Quaalude is knowledgeable, as knowledgeable as
one "BeAr' Ederson - from which he copied and pasted his entire,
disjointed response!
I dropped 'BeAr" a PM (he is a Wilders participant :) )to find that he
was plagiarized. Completely!
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:17:49 -0500, Nathan See
> <nathan_c@wildersecurity.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:08:53 -0600, mark3e@weowe.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:02:06 -0500, Nathan See
>>> <nathan_c@wildersecurity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:59:58 -0500, DasFox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my own basic tests - Eraser performed the best...TECH APPROVED...
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter which one you use, if it does what it is suppose to
>>>>> do, overwrite, then it works, that's all there is to it, BOTTOM
>>>>> LINE...
>>>>>
>>>>> What you guys are falling for is all the Propaganda Sales BS...!
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
>>>>> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
>>>>> It's not...LEARN...
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
>>>>> properly...
>>>>>
>>>>> But I doubt that...
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore the BOTTOM LINE we are talking about that people don't seem
>>>>> to get or understand, that we are talking about are the 'Number of
>>>>> Passes' to wipe out something from being recoverable...BOTTOM
>>>>> LINE...NO...!
>>>>>
>>>>> If CCleaner does it's job, then there is nothing better, it's all
>>>>> hype...
>>>>>
>>>>> THANKS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hey There DasFox
>>>>
>>>>I think there is a thread or 2 where you tested various secure
>>>>deletion software. While CCleaner if i remember correctly, deleted
>>>>the file, the "file name" could still be recovered and these days,
>>>>that's probably enough evidence to bag you
>>>
>>> Eraser jumbles the filename into an unrecognizable bunch of
>>> characters. You're safe in that regard.
>>>
>>> http://eraser.heidi.ie/
>>
>>What does that mean? Unrecognizable to whom?
>
> weqpewriaffaferwip
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:15:24 GMT, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>Quaalude <Quaaludes@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>news:8retqnFvcsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>...snip clear and well-made points for brevity...
>>
>>You have a good grasp of what is required for scrubbing a
>>drive effectively - in the sense of about as effectively as it
>>can be done.
>>
>>However, while I accept that you have a solid grasp of the
>>required knowledge and (likely) the self-discipline to do a
>>good job of scrubbing/erasing, that still doesn't address some
>>of the other major weaknesses of scrubbing:
>>
>>1) It's slow - on the scale of hours to do right for a large
>>hard drive. And this creates a long window of vulnerability
>>after every session (e.g., to a no-knock raid). Even worse
>>if, due to laxity, scrubbing is only done sporadically.
>
> I think you people are being ridiculously over the top.
>
> All the original poster wanted to know about was wiping particular
> files, not his entire hd.
Good POINT...but ILITISTS like nemo outits have to show off their
EGOS...
This harms the group and messes up good TECH talk...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:04:48 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
> mark3e@weowe.com wrote in
> news:sql5l6dqrjov0v82rqliljc344uo1djhu5@4ax.com:
>
>> I think you people are being ridiculously over the top.
>
> And you're wrong! Thankfully, your lack of insight and judgment
> is your misfortune.
SEE...?...CUTTING people up and down accomplishes NOTHING for noobs or
anyone...
EXCEPT to make outits feel like he is SUPERIOR...
CANADIAN thing when in front of AMERICANS I guess...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:45:03 -0500, heirophant wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:15:24 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> Quaalude <Quaaludes@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:8retqnFvcsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> ...snip clear and well-made points for brevity...
>>
>> You have a good grasp of what is required for scrubbing a
>> drive effectively - in the sense of about as effectively as it
>> can be done.
>
> Mr. outis, although it is good to see your control your sharp Jesuit
> tongue for the good of the newsgroup, :) I also read Mr. Quaalude's
> response and found it interestingly disjointed. You said "horse", he
> responded "heroin" :(
>
> I would agree that Mr. Quaalude is knowledgeable, as knowledgeable as
> one "BeAr' Ederson - from which he copied and pasted his entire,
> disjointed response!
>
> I dropped 'BeAr" a PM (he is a Wilders participant :) )to find that he
> was plagiarized. Completely!
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/browse_frm/thread/899357d4f5d9d798/662f89b61943d10c?lnk=gst&q=%22eraser%22#662f89b619 43d10c>
>
> I suppose, in your glee and willingness to engage Mr. Quaalude, for
> the noobs of course ;), you overlooked Mr. Quaalude's dysfunctional
> post!
>
> Carry on though ;)
Now THAT is funny...LOL...outits is so full of HIMSELF he can't see
the trees in the FOREST inside his head...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:56:00 +0100 (CET), Anonymous wrote:
> DasFox <dasfox@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
>> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
>> It's not...LEARN...
>> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
>> properly...
>
> CCleaner is first a system optimization tool, and only second a
> privacy tool. Plus, data may be stored on a live system in other
> places than where CCleaner is looking. So if you are in need of a
> secure deletion solution, go for the DBAN boot disk.
OK...to me an optimum system is a PRIVATE one...YMMV...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:56:00 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org>
> wrote:
>
>>DasFox <dasfox@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>> So if you're going to have Crap Cleaner do 7 passes, how do imagine
>>> anything passed this many times is going to be recoverable at all?
>>> It's not...LEARN...
>>> Now, unless CCleaner has a flaw in it's design and isn't doing this
>>> properly...
>>
>>CCleaner is first a system optimization tool, and only second a
>>privacy tool. Plus, data may be stored on a live system in other
>>places than where CCleaner is looking. So if you are in need of a
>>secure deletion solution, go for the DBAN boot disk.
>
> Nintey-Nine percent of the time programs like CCleaner are fine. All
> the average Joe has to worry about are family, friends and work
> associated snoopers finding info on his box he doesn't want found.
> Anything other than that is paranoia. If you're a Pedophile, crooked
> financier or an Al-Qaida operative, then you better worry a lot about
> such matters in detail.
Here is Tech Truth...LISTEN...the MAN or WOMAN knows of what he is
SAYING to us...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:48:52 +0100, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> "nemo_out-tits" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
>> 2) You are still susceptible to file system tampering - the
>> insertion of trojans, software keyloggers, modified
>> executables, and on and on. Not to mention more subtle
>> tampering (e.g., changing a few numbers in each spreadsheet,
>> etc. to wreak havoc months later when it is discovered that
>> they - and all intervening backups - are corrupt.)
>
> Full HD encryption does not protect you against live system
> tampering either. And you can always be forced to give up the
> password - in contrast to that, wiped data is wiped.
I call this RUBBER HOSE CRYPTO...
> In fact, full HD encryption protects you against only one thing:
> powered down loss or theft. This alone might be enough reason for
> most people, but you should know the limitations.
heirophant <heremypants@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:iiuqrv$hnq$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:15:24 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> Quaalude <Quaaludes@hushmail.com> wrote in
>> news:8retqnFvcsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> ...snip clear and well-made points for brevity...
>>
>> You have a good grasp of what is required for scrubbing a
>> drive effectively - in the sense of about as effectively
>> as it can be done.
>
> Mr. outis, although it is good to see your control your
> sharp Jesuit tongue for the good of the newsgroup, :) I
> also read Mr. Quaalude's response and found it
> interestingly disjointed. You said "horse", he responded
> "heroin" :(
Actually, 'horse' IS a (rather old-fashioned) slang synonym for
heroin.
> I would agree that Mr. Quaalude is knowledgeable, as
> knowledgeable as one "BeAr' Ederson - from which he copied
> and pasted his entire, disjointed response!
If you found his response disjointed that's your problem. And
where and how Quaalude got the material for his post, whether
plagiarized or not, doesn't interest me - it's you Wilders'folks
who have recently infested these newsgroups with your idiotic
vendettas and feuds and fascination with each other's
personalities. Me, I don't give a **** about such trivia - I
deal with substantive issues and I call 'em as I sees 'em.
Quaalude's post was just a peg for me to hang my response on - I
snipped his post in its entirety, for ****'s sake!
DasFox <dasfox@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:iiurjh$cq5$1@news.mixmin.net:
> Good POINT...but ILITISTS like nemo outits have to show off
> their EGOS...
ILITISTS?
****, with spelling like that no one will ever accuse you of
being elite! You're just a pimple on the arse of humanity, an
irritating but meaningless nuisance.
Fritz Wuehler
<fritz@spamexpire-201102.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in
news:7a5130ee8b98a7fe30cfb66bf059d7a5@msgid.frell. theremailer.
net:
> "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
>> 2) You are still susceptible to file system tampering -
>> the insertion of trojans, software keyloggers, modified
>> executables, and on and on. Not to mention more subtle
>> tampering (e.g., changing a few numbers in each
>> spreadsheet, etc. to wreak havoc months later when it is
>> discovered that they - and all intervening backups - are
>> corrupt.)
>
> Full HD encryption does not protect you against live system
> tampering either. And you can always be forced to give up
> the password - in contrast to that, wiped data is wiped.
Nor does full HD encryption protect you from genital herpes - it
isn't a panacea for every computer ill. But what it does it
does superbly - far more effectively and far more conveniently
than scrubbing.
> In fact, full HD encryption protects you against only one
> thing: powered down loss or theft. This alone might be
> enough reason for most people, but you should know the
> limitations.
Scrubbing protects you from all that scrubbing does - and more.
And it does so more effectively and more conveniently.
Secure deletion program 
Linear Mode
