This was true in 1996, and is still true now.' As the paper says, "A good scrubbing with random data will do about as well as can be expected". For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do. If you're using a drive which uses encoding technology X, you only need to perform the passes specific to X, and you never need to perform all 35 passes. In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any drive since it targets a blend of scenarios involving all types of (normally-used) encoding technology, which covers everything back to 30+-year-old MFM methods (if you don't understand that statement, re-read the paper). 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. 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. It would be so much better if developers would be clear about overwriting data - and not try to make people think that 35 must be better. The author of that 35 pass procedure has written to clarify that 35 passes was for old technology disks (pre 1995).
So sad to see software vendors, and Giveaway - continuing to hype the now-deprecated 35 overwrites. Quote: "This easy-to-use Windows software will overwrite sensitive data even up to 35 times "
0 kommentar(er)
