• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

How can I overwrite the primary partition?

À

Àî

Flightless Bird
Hi, I'd like to use file shredder to overwrite the primary partition C:, but
it failed for the partition is in use. What can I do? Can I install another
system on another parition such as E or F, and then boot from E or F
partition, so that I can overwrite the ex-primary partition using file
shredder?

Please help me. thanks.
 
S

Stefan Patric

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:38:57 +0800, Àî wrote:

> Hi, I'd like to use file shredder to overwrite the primary partition C:,
> but it failed for the partition is in use. What can I do? Can I install
> another system on another parition such as E or F, and then boot from E
> or F partition, so that I can overwrite the ex-primary partition using
> file shredder?


No need to install another system. Just download, install to a floppy,
USB flash drive or CD Dban, Darik's Boot and Nuke utility, and boot the
system with it.

http://www.dban.org/

Dban does a better job at destroying data on a partition or an entire
hard drive than typical file shredders.

Stef
 
À

Àî

Flightless Bird
Thanks,

But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?

"Stefan Patric" <not@this.address.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:EdXrn.50169$sx5.16334@newsfe16.iad...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:38:57 +0800, ¨¤? wrote:
>
>> Hi, I'd like to use file shredder to overwrite the primary partition C:,
>> but it failed for the partition is in use. What can I do? Can I install
>> another system on another parition such as E or F, and then boot from E
>> or F partition, so that I can overwrite the ex-primary partition using
>> file shredder?

>
> No need to install another system. Just download, install to a floppy,
> USB flash drive or CD Dban, Darik's Boot and Nuke utility, and boot the
> system with it.
>
> http://www.dban.org/
>
> Dban does a better job at destroying data on a partition or an entire
> hard drive than typical file shredders.
>
> Stef
>
>
 
S

sgopus

Flightless Bird
You can't wipe your primary partition while windows is active, and why would
you want to? if you wanted to wipe windows out just boot to the install disk
and format the partition, I question if this is what you really want to do?

"Àî" wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?
>
> "Stefan Patric" <not@this.address.com> ôÈëÃûâÃÂÎÅ:EdXrn.50169$sx5.16334@newsfe16.iad...
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:38:57 +0800, ¨¤? wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, I'd like to use file shredder to overwrite the primary partition C:,
> >> but it failed for the partition is in use. What can I do? Can I install
> >> another system on another parition such as E or F, and then boot from E
> >> or F partition, so that I can overwrite the ex-primary partition using
> >> file shredder?

> >
> > No need to install another system. Just download, install to a floppy,
> > USB flash drive or CD Dban, Darik's Boot and Nuke utility, and boot the
> > system with it.
> >
> > http://www.dban.org/
> >
> > Dban does a better job at destroying data on a partition or an entire
> > hard drive than typical file shredders.
> >
> > Stef
> >
> >

>
>
> .
>
 
L

Lem

Flightless Bird
Àî wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?
>
> "Stefan Patric" <not@this.address.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:EdXrn.50169$sx5.16334@newsfe16.iad...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:38:57 +0800, ¨¤? wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I'd like to use file shredder to overwrite the primary partition C:,
>>> but it failed for the partition is in use. What can I do? Can I install
>>> another system on another parition such as E or F, and then boot from E
>>> or F partition, so that I can overwrite the ex-primary partition using
>>> file shredder?

>> No need to install another system. Just download, install to a floppy,
>> USB flash drive or CD Dban, Darik's Boot and Nuke utility, and boot the
>> system with it.
>>
>> http://www.dban.org/
>>
>> Dban does a better job at destroying data on a partition or an entire
>> hard drive than typical file shredders.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>

>
>


So what? See this DBAN FAQ:

Is the Gutmann method the best method?

No.

Most of the passes in the Gutmann wipe are designed to flip the bits in
MFM/RLL encoded disks, which is an encoding that modern hard disks do
not use.

In a followup to his paper, Gutmann said that it is unnecessary to run
those passes because you cannot be reasonably certain about how a modern
hard disk stores data on the platter. If the encoding is unknown, then
writing random patterns is your best strategy.

In particular, Gutmann says that "in the time since this paper was
published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique
described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil
spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding
techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and
EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple
scrubbing with random data... For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few
passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do".

Read these papers by Peter Gutmann:

* Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory
* Data Remanence in Semiconductor Devices

Links to Gutmann papers at http://www.dban.org/node/40

--
Lem

Apollo 11 - 40 years ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/index.html
 
S

Stefan Patric

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0800, Àî wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?


IIRC, Dban's most destructive wipe which meets the National Security
Agency's criteria for "unrecoverable" is 7 passes. It is the slowest of
the included cleansing utilities, but the most thorough.

Stef
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0800, Àî wrote:
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
>> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?

>
>IIRC, Dban's most destructive wipe which meets the National Security
>Agency's criteria for "unrecoverable" is 7 passes. It is the slowest of
>the included cleansing utilities, but the most thorough.
>
>Stef


Why was more than one wipe, of all the data areas, ever necessary?

When I write a new file to a cluster, and then I read it back, it
reads what I just wrote. It doesn't include parts of what used to be
there. Because what used to be there is gone, I assume. Right?
 
L

Lem

Flightless Bird
mm wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0800, Àî wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
>>> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?

>> IIRC, Dban's most destructive wipe which meets the National Security
>> Agency's criteria for "unrecoverable" is 7 passes. It is the slowest of
>> the included cleansing utilities, but the most thorough.
>>
>> Stef

>
> Why was more than one wipe, of all the data areas, ever necessary?
>
> When I write a new file to a cluster, and then I read it back, it
> reads what I just wrote. It doesn't include parts of what used to be
> there. Because what used to be there is gone, I assume. Right?


The theory is that with sophisticated tools, someone with physical
access to a disk can detect previously-written bit patterns. The more
times a given physical spot on the disk is overwritten, the more
difficult it is to detect the original bit value. For virtually everyone
except the more paranoid parts of the government, rewriting once, as you
describe, is sufficient.

For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence


My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
government requires physical destruction of the disk.

--
Lem

Apollo 11 - 40 years ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/index.html
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:

>mm wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0800, Àî wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> But it seems that DBAN can not wipe the disk using 35 passes as file
>>>> shredder does. How many passes can DBAN erase?
>>> IIRC, Dban's most destructive wipe which meets the National Security
>>> Agency's criteria for "unrecoverable" is 7 passes. It is the slowest of
>>> the included cleansing utilities, but the most thorough.
>>>
>>> Stef

>>
>> Why was more than one wipe, of all the data areas, ever necessary?
>>
>> When I write a new file to a cluster, and then I read it back, it
>> reads what I just wrote. It doesn't include parts of what used to be
>> there. Because what used to be there is gone, I assume. Right?

>
>The theory is that with sophisticated tools, someone with physical
>access to a disk can detect previously-written bit patterns. The more
>times a given physical spot on the disk is overwritten, the more
>difficult it is to detect the original bit value. For virtually everyone
>except the more paranoid parts of the government, rewriting once, as you
>describe, is sufficient.
>
>For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence


Thank you. I haven't read this yet but I will.

BTW, I tried to say it, but wasn't so clear. I know that when one
rewrites a file it doesn't write it to the same place the previous
copy was, and when one writes a new file, the user doesn't know what
is being overlaid. But of course in wiping a disk, it's not usually
set to wipe specific date areas but the entire disk.

Hmmm. I presume when one wipes a directory -- that's an option, isn't
it -- it will wipe everything listed in the FAT for that directory,
but what about FAT entries that have been overlaid, what about the 50
or 100 or 500 copies ofthe file that used to be in that directory?
How does it find them all? Even for a file that is still in the
directory: How does it find any copy of it except the last one, which
the FAT entry points to?

(I use FAT32. I don't remember if NTFS has a FAT, but I'm sure it has
something similar, so "Same question".

>My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
>government requires physical destruction of the disk.


Well if they're going to destroy it anyhow, can I have it?
 
A

Anthony Buckland

Flightless Bird
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:
>> ...
>>My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
>>government requires physical destruction of the disk.

>
> Well if they're going to destroy it anyhow, can I have it?
>


Make an Access To Information request. When you receive the
disk, you may find that certain sensitive information areas have
been blacked out. Such as the recording surface.
 
P

Paul Randall

Flightless Bird
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:


>
>>My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
>>government requires physical destruction of the disk.

>
> Well if they're going to destroy it anyhow, can I have it?


Exactly which parts of the destroyed disk do you want to have? I'm thinking
they either use an incinerator or a shredder to ensure that the ones and
zeros can not be recovered in a meaningful way. At least some portion of
the incinerator/shredder output is probably classified as hazardous waste,
which will be expensive to ship to you.

-Paul Randall
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:38:56 -0500, "Paul Randall"
<paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:

>
>"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:

>
>>
>>>My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
>>>government requires physical destruction of the disk.

>>
>> Well if they're going to destroy it anyhow, can I have it?

>
>Exactly which parts of the destroyed disk do you want to have? I'm thinking


I want it before they destory it. If they're going to destroy it
anyhow, they might as well give it to me. I promise I won't give the
data to anyone else or misuse it myself.

>they either use an incinerator or a shredder to ensure that the ones and
>zeros can not be recovered in a meaningful way. At least some portion of
>the incinerator/shredder output is probably classified as hazardous waste,
>which will be expensive to ship to you.
>
>-Paul Randall
>
 
P

Paul Randall

Flightless Bird
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:albfr5teohou3djpdvsa12leqsp6fp5o2j@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:38:56 -0500, "Paul Randall"
> <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:

>>
>>>
>>>>My understanding, however, is that for really sensitive information, the
>>>>government requires physical destruction of the disk.
>>>
>>> Well if they're going to destroy it anyhow, can I have it?

>>
>>Exactly which parts of the destroyed disk do you want to have? I'm
>>thinking

>
> I want it before they destory it. If they're going to destroy it
> anyhow, they might as well give it to me. I promise I won't give the
> data to anyone else or misuse it myself.


You have a facility as secure as the facility in which the drives had been
used by the government, in which you would use/store them, with all the
safeguards and paper trails to prove it? And the appropriate security level
for all your personel? And the 'need to know' clearance for the info that
you won't misuse? I'm thinking it would be way cheaper for you to just buy
new drives.

>>they either use an incinerator or a shredder to ensure that the ones and
>>zeros can not be recovered in a meaningful way. At least some portion of
>>the incinerator/shredder output is probably classified as hazardous waste,
>>which will be expensive to ship to you.
>>
>>-Paul Randall
>>

>
 
Top