[vox-tech] Most efficient way to wipe hard drives

[Lemseffer. Tahar (MSA)]

Thanks you

How can I remove a debugging file from a make file?

Thanks
T

-----Original Message-----
From: vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org
[mailto:vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org] On Behalf Of Tim Riley
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:13 AM
To: lugod's technical discussion forum
Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Most efficient way to wipe hard drives

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:44 -0700, Lemseffer. Tahar (MSA) wrote:
> Good morning All,
> Is anyone familiar with C Unix

Yes. I'm sure you'll find a lot of company at LUGOD. However, this
topic is better discussed on the mailing list vox. Vox-tech is used
for specific technical questions. Also, this change of subject would
warrant a new thread.

> Thanks
> T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org
> [mailto:vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org] On Behalf Of Chanoch (Ken)
> Bloom
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:38 AM
> To: lugod's technical discussion forum
> Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Most efficient way to wipe hard drives
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:56:54AM -0700, Brian Lavender wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:20:30PM -0700, Bill Broadley wrote:
> > > 
> > > Short answer, one wipe is enough (At least for NIST, and one of
the
> British
> > > Infosec standards), wipes miss bad sectors, the ATA secure erase
> command is
> > > worth checking out.
> > [snip]
> > I think caching is a concern on some systems, so more wipes seems to
> > magically make the write go to the actual media. But I would agree
> with
> > one wipe is probably enough. I had not thought about bad blocks. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > So if you don't use secure wipe and won't lose sleep at night over
a
> few bad
> > > blocks being potentially recovered I'd recommend something like:
> > > 
> > > dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sd<whichever disk>
> > 
> > Your computer must have a lot of entropy! Note that that device
> gathers
> > entropy from the system. When an event happens, it may be worth one
or
> > two bits. Last time I wrote a program that read from that device, it
> > seemed that I got a number of bytes, and then I had to wait as
various
> > events occured to the system. That is why they often tell you to
move
> the
> > mouse around when generating keys. It generates entropy for the
> system.
> 
> /dev/random, blocks waiting for entropy.
> /dev/urandom doesn't wait for entropy. It uses entropy if it's
> avalable, and switches to a PRNG if there isn't enough entropy. I
> think it's similar to what you suggest doing with AES.
> 
> --Ken
> 
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech at lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
____________________________________________________________________________
EMAIL DISCLAIMER:
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by other
than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately
and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any
attachments thereto.
_____________________________________________________________________________