How can I overwrite the primary partition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Àî
  • Start date Start date
Ã

Àî

Guest
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.
 
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
 
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" 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

>

>
 
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" ôÈëÃÂûâÃÂÂÎÅ: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

> >

> >

>

>

> .

>
 
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" 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

>>

>>

>

>



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
 
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
 
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric

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?
 
mm wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric

> 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
 
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem wrote:



>mm wrote:

>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:23 GMT, Stefan Patric

>> 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?
 
"mm" wrote in message

news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem 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.
 
"mm" wrote in message

news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem 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
 
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:38:56 -0500, "Paul Randall"

wrote:



>

>"mm" wrote in message

>news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem 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

>
 
"mm" wrote in message

news:albfr5teohou3djpdvsa12leqsp6fp5o2j@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:38:56 -0500, "Paul Randall"

> wrote:

>

>>

>>"mm" wrote in message

>>news:k8n4r5hk2on6dakkkcfblcpo49b6t3bo2b@4ax.com...

>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:22:04 -0400, Lem 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

>>

>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top