[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Default number of overwrites in shred
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Default number of overwrites in shred |
Date: |
Fri, 04 May 2007 09:51:17 +0200 |
Peter Eckersley <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:14 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
...
>> My reflex was to object. Reducing the default number of passes from
>> 25 to 1 seemed extreme. But after skimming through the link below,
>> it's hard to argue :-)
>
> Really? For "Top Secret+" material, their "secure erase newsletter"
> calls for 2 write passes, offset slightly on either side of the track (p
> 4).
I too would feel better with a minimum of 2 or 3 passes, just in case.
Although a program like shred cannot choose how far from a track to write
its data, I have to wonder if one effect of its current 25-iteration
approach is to write with slightly different offsets.
If there are a couple of other big-name research labs that publish
similar findings, we can always reduce it further.
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, (continued)
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/03
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Peter Eckersley, 2007/05/03
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Jim Meyering, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Peter Eckersley, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Jim Meyering, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Peter Eckersley, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Philip Rowlands, 2007/05/05
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Pádraig Brady, 2007/05/06
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/08
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, John Cowan, 2007/05/04
- Re: Default number of overwrites in shred, Peter Eckersley, 2007/05/04