On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Murda Mcloud <murdamcloud (at) bigpond (dot) com [email concealed]>

I won't reply to the first part, as I feel that it doesn't really need
much more elaboration.

>> >> And why do you feel that random is better?
>> >
>> >If it is actual files that are copied, they may be recovered.
>> >Depending on the nature of those files, opinions could be made either
>> >way. If it's random data, nothing can be retrieved and they are left
>> >with nothing to work with. If they are accusing him of wrong-doing
>> >that he is innocent of, he should leave them with as little as
>> >possible to work with, in my opinion.
>
> Maybe I should have asked, "Why do you feel that random is better than
> something else eg 0's?"
>
> I don't think it matters whether it's random or not-overwrite something and
> it's overwritten. Which means it's unrecoverable. Some apps will overwrite
> with random numbers. Eg DBAN
> If someone sees a pattern in the hard drive after I do
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdax
> because it's not random they would be right. It's not random. However, can
> they see any files I had on there before? No.
>

Which is more likely to appear on a normal hard drive that has not
been tampered with or set up: Entire blocks of 0s, or random malformed
data?

--
Razi

[ reply ]