Wiping data from drive question

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:29:32 -0700, "Alun Jones"
<> wrote:

>"kony" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> There are lots of ways people who use encryption can be
>> tripped up because they had a false sense of security.
>> Again I have never argued NOT to use encryption but rather,
>> it is not so foolproof and only one method of safeguarding,
>> but not ultimately destroying, data.
>
>So is overwriting. The fact that you refuse to understand or accept the
>mathematics does not prevent the truth.

A thing called "science", or "proof" does though.

I never refused to accept that "IF" someone used a very
strong encryption, and "IF" the only method of getting that
data was brute force cracking, it could take far too long,
astronomical amounts of time. Those are quite narrowly
defined conditions, not encryption in itself but a degree of
more restrictons in fact. Same applies to random multipass
overwriting, it's not some sorta loose concept, there are in
fact recognized standards which nobody has been able to
recover from. So on one hand we have data that still
exists but is either very hard to decrypt, or much easier
depending on the method available (I for one would not start
out trying to brute force the encryption, that would be the
last resort). On the other hand, we have a proper overwrite
which has no possible alternate method of access, has no
reasonable expectation that it's only a matter of time or
expense.

>
>The only foolproof method is never to create the data in the first place.


Maybe, but even if we want to indulge all the optimists out
there that think "someday, anything will be possible", we're
still left having nobody that can recover proper mulitplass
random overwritten data. Maybe in 50 years they'll be able
to. Will the supposed remaining remnants of magnetism (IOW,
supposed to possibly correlate to some level of the past
data writes) be intact on a 50 year old platter? Likely
even any data that hadn't been overwritten at all would be
difficult to read at that point.

kony

kony wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:29:32 -0700, "Alun Jones"
> <> wrote:
>
> >"kony" <> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> There are lots of ways people who use encryption can be
> >> tripped up because they had a false sense of security.
> >> Again I have never argued NOT to use encryption but rather,
> >> it is not so foolproof and only one method of safeguarding,
> >> but not ultimately destroying, data.
> >
> >So is overwriting. The fact that you refuse to understand or accept
> >the mathematics does not prevent the truth.
>
> A thing called "science", or "proof" does though.
>
> I never refused to accept that "IF" someone used a very
> strong encryption, and "IF" the only method of getting that
> data was brute force cracking, it could take far too long,

What you've done, korn-dog, is start out babbling about encrypting
being breakable and wiping be impossible to recover from, then back
peddle to this laughable "I never said" tap dance in some pathetic
effort to win a point that you ****ed away the minute your fingers hit
the keyboard to bang out your very first bit of idiocy.

First of all, wiping and encryption are two different tools for two
different jobs. But as they relate to keeping your data out of the
hands of your attacker in the REAL world encryption is so far beyond
the capabilities of so called "wiping" it's not even a comparison.

You can wipe files all day long and because there's not a file wiping
utility on the planet that knows about every nook and cranny where a PC
might hide files you could be completely wasting your time. Any third
rate attacker could fire up any freely available forensics tool and
have your "wiped" files right in front of him in a few minutes.

If you encrypt the drive though, it's going to take them a damn lot
longer than it's worth to get ANY of that data. Unless you hand over
your keys, but then they can beat a confession out of you whether you
wipe a file or not too. In fact with the real world chances of having
"wiped" files partially or fully recoverable, it's probably better if
you DO confess and save yourself the extra obstruction or contempt
charge added on to your already long prison term.

<rest of your pathetic strawgrabbing babble snipped>

Borked Pseudo Mailed

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" wrote:
> What you've done, korn-dog, is start out babbling about encrypting
> being breakable and wiping be impossible to recover from, then back
> peddle to this laughable "I never said" tap dance in some pathetic
> effort to win a point that you ****ed away the minute your fingers hit
> the keyboard to bang out your very first bit of idiocy.


KoRny is notorious for dodging and weaving and inventing
tiny little exceptions to everything as a way out of the corners
he argues himself into. Just drop the subject. We all know
he's a self-righteous pontificating blow-hard.

*TimDaniels*

Timothy Daniels

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 01:49:02 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo
Mailed <> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:29:32 -0700, "Alun Jones"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >"kony" <> wrote in message
>> >news:.. .
>> >> There are lots of ways people who use encryption can be
>> >> tripped up because they had a false sense of security.
>> >> Again I have never argued NOT to use encryption but rather,
>> >> it is not so foolproof and only one method of safeguarding,
>> >> but not ultimately destroying, data.
>> >
>> >So is overwriting. The fact that you refuse to understand or accept
>> >the mathematics does not prevent the truth.
>>
>> A thing called "science", or "proof" does though.
>>
>> I never refused to accept that "IF" someone used a very
>> strong encryption, and "IF" the only method of getting that
>> data was brute force cracking, it could take far too long,
>
>What you've done, korn-dog,

Thanks for trolling by.

kony

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 02:15:42 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<> wrote:


> KoRny is notorious for dodging and weaving and inventing
> tiny little exceptions to everything as a way out of the corners
> he argues himself into. Just drop the subject. We all know
> he's a self-righteous pontificating blow-hard.


No Tim I actually consider DETAILS. In them is where the
different lies. You on the other hand think it's too
difficult to even string coax cable. Why? Because you
can't grasp the finer details of anything unless coaxed to
do it.

kony