Which is totally irrelevant, by the way. It describes the use of software to delete individual files from within a FAT12 filesystem. It discusses the fact that when you delete a file from a live filesystem, you have to update the metadata, and it will leave traces. I'm not au fait with FAT, but I'm very much au fait with Unix filesystems, and it's not possible to "disappear" a file from Unix completely via the exposed API, and doing so will involve a risky process of having a user-space program access the raw disk and rewrite directory blocks. I imagine it's the same for Windows. Doing that without leaving a trace is going to be very hard, for roughly the same reason as it's possible to fingerprint TCP/IP stacks by looking at their choices of padding, randoms and other incidental aspects of the implementation.
None of this says anything, at all, about simply splatting /dev/zero or /dev/urandom (or their Windows equivalents) over a raw partition. And it says even less about your claim of there being a legal requirement about, well, any of this.
Which is totally irrelevant, by the way. It describes the use of software to delete individual files from within a FAT12 filesystem. It discusses the fact that when you delete a file from a live filesystem, you have to update the metadata, and it will leave traces. I'm not au fait with FAT, but I'm very much au fait with Unix filesystems, and it's not possible to "disappear" a file from Unix completely via the exposed API, and doing so will involve a risky process of having a user-space program access the raw disk and rewrite directory blocks. I imagine it's the same for Windows. Doing that without leaving a trace is going to be very hard, for roughly the same reason as it's possible to fingerprint TCP/IP stacks by looking at their choices of padding, randoms and other incidental aspects of the implementation.
None of this says anything, at all, about simply splatting /dev/zero or /dev/urandom (or their Windows equivalents) over a raw partition. And it says even less about your claim of there being a legal requirement about, well, any of this.
Yes. What on earth makes you think it wouldn't? In fact, doubly so, because ZFS doesn't over-write on modification and has a distributed checksum model which makes modification of the disk other than via the filesystem code almost impossible. For example, you can write zeroes over one side of a ZFS RAID-1 group and the checksums will detect it. None of that says anything about the behaviour when you write zeros over the last copy.
But then, I was only an Alpha tester of ZFS, so I guess my knowledge isn't as extensive as yours.
@ibatten Here is a question to your rant about my posts.
Do you think the government would allow pedophiles to permanently delete their data?
Of course not, but it's just not public knowledge.
Pretty sure I would have read about in the daily fail. Gov stops paedos. It would have been a thread in GD on new legislation the gov had passed on deleting data and the restrictions on software.
Unless there has been some secret legislation passed.
Pretty sure I would have read about in the daily fail. Gov stops paedos. It would have been a thread in GD on new legislation the gov had passed on deleting data and the restrictions on software.
Unless there has been some secret legislation passed.
You read that, no wonder you don't have a clue of what goes on in the real world.
Encryption can be broken. GPU's are now used to speed up the process because of there number crunching capabilities
that's interesting because i was under the impression that it would take every computer on earth working together in parallel longer than the age of the universe to brutefroce a 256bit AES encryption key. and use more energy than the sun
Encryption can be broken. GPU's are now used to speed up the process because of there number crunching capabilities
Indeed it does speed it up. By using a GPU capable of a billion trial decryptions per second, you can break AES192 substantially faster than using a conventional CPU. Now it only takes 199045590290039344363133860451790538308674 years (2^192/10^9, converted to years). Ah, but you say, the government have lots of GPUs. Let's say they've got a billion GPUs, and a couple of nuclear power stations to power them. Then it only takes 199045590290039344363133860451790 years. Maybe the government have a super-secret method that's a billion, billion times faster. That brings it down to 199045590290039 years. Paedophiles are sleeping uneasily, let me tell you.
Ok lets get back to the point, according to robertcrowther there is legislation pertaining to software used to securely delete data from drives...it just seems he doesn't have the proof to backup his claim
Ok lets get back to the point, according to robertcrowther there is legislation pertaining to software used to securely delete data from drives...it just seems he doesn't have the proof to backup his claim
I've tried, but some people on this forum can't seem to grasp the basics of computer science.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
'Such a facile argument to say that because the government doesn't want pedophiles to wipe their data it follows that there must be method and legislation in place to stop them.
They would like people not to murder each other as well, but it happens.
I've tried, but some people on this forum can't seem to grasp the basics of computer science.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
I'm desperate to learn about the legislation but you haven't said what it is. when it was passed. what it requires. or anything.
I've tried, but some people on this forum can't seem to grasp the basics of computer science.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
Since IT has to operate in a legal environment its in everyones interest to know about this legislation as otherwise there could be a lot of people breaking the law..so please a simple linky to the relevant legal bits and bobs so we can have a good long read and perhaps stop pestering you from your sleep under the bridge
I've tried, but some people on this forum can't seem to grasp the basics of computer science.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
You have tried avoiding answering the question of where the legislation is that's for sure.
Why do you think people in IT are not interested in fulfilling their obligations?
Comments
Do you think the government would allow pedophiles to permanently delete their data?
Of course not, but it's just not public knowledge.
Which is totally irrelevant, by the way. It describes the use of software to delete individual files from within a FAT12 filesystem. It discusses the fact that when you delete a file from a live filesystem, you have to update the metadata, and it will leave traces. I'm not au fait with FAT, but I'm very much au fait with Unix filesystems, and it's not possible to "disappear" a file from Unix completely via the exposed API, and doing so will involve a risky process of having a user-space program access the raw disk and rewrite directory blocks. I imagine it's the same for Windows. Doing that without leaving a trace is going to be very hard, for roughly the same reason as it's possible to fingerprint TCP/IP stacks by looking at their choices of padding, randoms and other incidental aspects of the implementation.
None of this says anything, at all, about simply splatting /dev/zero or /dev/urandom (or their Windows equivalents) over a raw partition. And it says even less about your claim of there being a legal requirement about, well, any of this.
to quote you
i don't really want to read another link of yours. because they are all irrelevant.
is this one going to say that legislation requires all public ally available software to leave file remanence?
ETA So i've read it. I have studied stochastic calculus from a physics and finance perspective. so it was interesting.
it in no way pertains to the secure deletion of data though.
When you say that you are very much au fait with unix systems, does that include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
The laws of physics allow people to permanently delete data.
But carry on, it's the most amusing thread(s) we've had for a long while.
lol.
I think they would yes.
you have in mind this ridiculous scenario where a computer is able to maintain an infinite amount of paedophilic imagery forever.
you know about encryption right. or is that a myth too?
Yes. What on earth makes you think it wouldn't? In fact, doubly so, because ZFS doesn't over-write on modification and has a distributed checksum model which makes modification of the disk other than via the filesystem code almost impossible. For example, you can write zeroes over one side of a ZFS RAID-1 group and the checksums will detect it. None of that says anything about the behaviour when you write zeros over the last copy.
But then, I was only an Alpha tester of ZFS, so I guess my knowledge isn't as extensive as yours.
And yet here you are, talking about it in public. Or, alternatively, making shit up. It's so hard to decide.
Encryption can be broken. GPU's are now used to speed up the process because of there number crunching capabilities
Can't win with you then, moan when I don't talk about it and moan when I do.
You are funny
Pretty sure I would have read about in the daily fail. Gov stops paedos. It would have been a thread in GD on new legislation the gov had passed on deleting data and the restrictions on software.
Unless there has been some secret legislation passed.
You read that, no wonder you don't have a clue of what goes on in the real world.
that's interesting because i was under the impression that it would take every computer on earth working together in parallel longer than the age of the universe to brutefroce a 256bit AES encryption key. and use more energy than the sun
Indeed it does speed it up. By using a GPU capable of a billion trial decryptions per second, you can break AES192 substantially faster than using a conventional CPU. Now it only takes 199045590290039344363133860451790538308674 years (2^192/10^9, converted to years). Ah, but you say, the government have lots of GPUs. Let's say they've got a billion GPUs, and a couple of nuclear power stations to power them. Then it only takes 199045590290039344363133860451790 years. Maybe the government have a super-secret method that's a billion, billion times faster. That brings it down to 199045590290039 years. Paedophiles are sleeping uneasily, let me tell you.
I haven't read a link for the legislation you claim.
I've tried, but some people on this forum can't seem to grasp the basics of computer science.
I think the best thing to do is for all those who are in IT, please leave and those that are in computer science can stay and learn about this legislation and the use of software to securely delete data.
They would like people not to murder each other as well, but it happens.
I'm desperate to learn about the legislation but you haven't said what it is. when it was passed. what it requires. or anything.
Should I stay out of it then ?
Since IT has to operate in a legal environment its in everyones interest to know about this legislation as otherwise there could be a lot of people breaking the law..so please a simple linky to the relevant legal bits and bobs so we can have a good long read and perhaps stop pestering you from your sleep under the bridge
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=1m
Please describe the "industry standard" counter measures which make that ineffective. Be as technical as you like: I'll reference you in my PhD.
You have tried avoiding answering the question of where the legislation is that's for sure.
Why do you think people in IT are not interested in fulfilling their obligations?