Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Best method For CD destruction

Reply
Thread Tools

Best method For CD destruction

 
 
Tx2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Default User
of http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)lid, felt we'd be interested in the following...


> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:26:01 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote:
>
> >Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> >> You said you understand but you obviously don't. We don't even care for
> >> reassembling the pieces, but only rather want to recover the data from each
> >> piece. Not caring for filesystem metadata or other stuff.

> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >Have you ever seen an industrial shredder? Have you seen the resultant pieces?
> >
> >Maybe *you're* the one that doesn't understand.

>
> No, Sebastian has it right in this case. You can get a lot of damaging
> information from the bits left over.


<ignorance mode>

How?

Is their a reader that will read the bytes off the bits?

Clearly a domestic optical drive can't be utilised, or is their a
special method to read the disk fragment in such?

Would specialist equipment be required to make the operation a success?

</ignorance mode>

If this data is /that/ secure, then whoever has created a mountain of
12,000 CD's needs to be fired form their job and take up something less
responsible.

--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages sent via Google Groups are 'auto-ignored'
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
Tx2 wrote:

> Is their a reader that will read the bytes off the bits?


Yes. The same thing the data recovery companies use for reading the
magnetic domains of from non-spinng hard drive platers. It's called a laser
(with a sufficiently precise positioning system).

> Would specialist equipment be required to make the operation a success?


We're talking about destroying data such they can't be recovered by
professional specialists and possibly not even secret services.

> If this data is /that/ secure, then whoever has created a mountain of
> 12,000 CD's needs to be fired form their job and take up something less
> responsible.


That's another view on this thing, and yes, it's important to never have
such a debacle happening again. However, it won't solve the problem that
these CDs now exist and have to be destroyed somehow.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
Notan wrote:

> I've seen the results of industrially shredded CDs.
>
> (Not a paper shredder that you'd find in a home, but an *industrial* shredder.)
>
> The result is *tiny* pieces of CDs,


Right. Any of these pieces contain somewhat some kilobytes of data with
about 50% of them being related to error-correction.

> many of which have delaminated.


This is no problem, since the lamination usually remains pretty intact and
we only care for lamination anyway, since this is where the data is stored.

> If this wasn't *enough*, you could always heat the pieces, reluting in a molten
> pile of non-recoverable data.


Then you don't need to shred it in first place. Anyway, you were indeed
talking about shredding being the only action taken.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Moe Trin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Appart from the fact that no one seems to have actually read the
>requirement and some of you seem paranoid or determined to go off
>on wild tangents invoving mysterious government agencies etc...


Yeah, the United States Department of Defense is a mysterious agency

>Shredding leaves data and is totally worthless.


You've obviously tried recovering the data - yet you feel that sanding
which results in smaller particles is satisfactory because the data...

>Fire has already been ruled out as leaving no proof.


Oh, so no one saw you putting the CDs into that fire.

>Microwave is just plain stupid.


That, I'll agree with

>Sanding will work fine for low volumes - dust isnt a problem
>except for the severely allergic - in which case someone else can do
>the job


So the data isn't important enough that someone else can't handle the
disks. Make up your mind please.

>Signed notorisation merely guarantees a fraudulent interest - this is
>always something to be avoided - its a dumb practice all round.


By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?

>I suspect my original concept is clearly the best.
>i.e. mild acid soaking.


OK, Wizzer - the disks are made of polycarbonate, with a reflective layer
that is either a gold film OVER an organic dye for WORMs and CD-Rs, or a
polycrystaline dye made of silver, indium, antimony, and tellurium. Do
tell us how many months it took your mild acid to react with that. Also
tell us how you prevented someone sneaking in and substituting blanks
for those sekret CDs during that time. By the way, if those are bulk
commercially produced CDs, the reflective layer is aluminum and is covered
with a second layer of plastic. Your acid soaking technique isn't going to
do anything useful to them.

>That can leave a plastic disk for proof of quantity and blankness of
>each.


But no proof that the plastic disk is the one that originally contained
that data.

>Furthermore the principle can have control of the dustbin.


What-ever. Free clue - some people have been destroying data a bit longer
than you, and know what it takes. You obviously haven't done any thinking
or research about the subject.

Old guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
Notan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> I've seen the results of industrially shredded CDs.
>>
>> (Not a paper shredder that you'd find in a home, but an *industrial* shredder.)
>>
>> The result is *tiny* pieces of CDs,

>
> Right. Any of these pieces contain somewhat some kilobytes of data with
> about 50% of them being related to error-correction.
>
>> many of which have delaminated.

>
> This is no problem, since the lamination usually remains pretty intact and
> we only care for lamination anyway, since this is where the data is stored.
>
>> If this wasn't *enough*, you could always heat the pieces, reluting in a molten
>> pile of non-recoverable data.

>
> Then you don't need to shred it in first place. Anyway, you were indeed
> talking about shredding being the only action taken.


Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
<whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.

Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?

--
Notan
 
Reply With Quote
 
dr@him.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed says...
> Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
> <whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.
>
> Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?
>
>


Like I said you didnt bother to read the requirements.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dr@him.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
> replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?
>


I'll answer this last one becasue it demonstrates whats wrong with you
people.

The question asked was how to do it.

In response you run off into questioning why and what for and which
government agency and now your postulating how I know someone hasn't
stolen the discs.

Instead of running off into your own fantasy paranoid lands how about
reading questions asked and answering them?

Or is that too easy for you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
dr@him.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Your acid soaking technique isn't going to
> do anything useful to them.
>


Actually it has afer 2 hours demonstrated it works just fine.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Unruh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2007
(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>notan@ddressthatcanbespammed says...
>> Industrial Shredder: Think "grinder." Not a flat grinder, but one that grinds
>> <whatever> in to tiny bits, similar in size to coarse salt.
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that data is recoverable?
>>
>>


>Like I said you didnt bother to read the requirements.


There were none. There was a general blathering of ill thought out
prejudices. It made no sense whatsoever.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Unruh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2007
(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> By the way - how do you know that someone hasn't taken the disks and
>> replaced them with others that you will laboriously attempt to clean?
>>


>I'll answer this last one becasue it demonstrates whats wrong with you
>people.


>The question asked was how to do it.


>In response you run off into questioning why and what for and which
>government agency and now your postulating how I know someone hasn't
>stolen the discs.


>Instead of running off into your own fantasy paranoid lands how about
>reading questions asked and answering them?


There was no coherent question.

Because your question makes no sense. Answers are useful only in context.
If I say-- just take them to the nearest black hole and throw them in--
would that be helpful? The answer is no. You state that you want proof that
the data is destroyed and secure destruction of the data. They are
incompatible requirements. Like proving a number is a prime and has exactly
three factors.

You repeatedly reject useful suggestions, because it does not accord with
your prejudices.

Do you want secure destruction of the data or do you wnat people to bow
down and state that your prejudices are fine.


You cannot prove the destruction of the medium. Start there. Then ask what
it is that you really want to accomplish and come back and ask for
suggestions of how to accomplish the real task, not some fantasy that you
have made up.

>Or is that too easy for you?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TimerTask destruction Jeff Java 4 08-20-2004 01:26 AM
Free to wrong pool 15dd170 not 15d2750 during global destruction. Gavin Williams Perl 0 07-22-2004 09:13 PM
destruction of the outlook folders =?Utf-8?B?bXVubXVuaXg=?= Microsoft Certification 0 04-09-2004 06:36 PM
mod_perl errors: prototype mismatch ... during global destruction ian douglas Perl 0 08-18-2003 11:17 PM
is google hacked? search for "weapons of mass destruction" alfa1 Computer Support 7 07-05-2003 07:40 PM



Advertisments