From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6275F138D11 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B82FDE0867; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 467F4E0783 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so54548159wic.1 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:05:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U945TIhGkUiVTBefon3oynZf9oxCENrlwenm3TeOXHo=; b=teDtDjS1HAeE4nGnyi/2X3xxkGwoz+Prmrx2GHgGe00ve0WIS9XkRIAqe2BTdWmqLd f2HjX6aCAlw5PRFmUHCkOlLQbHR40Dnyat0vjCCtjS57Ukjd4Hc8JX7dr1+ciPqrCtWX E0q1N+Co6qa6MKa8iyX5eZ+Y509OuFhG6FfxVsFrUpMNngsc4K5QZgPJboQV0P5GzI5Y z79HXI6zWTTH3tkt/KfgugcCdngBpvkJe4CHoS2ogYIZrv6b/H4S2zRCy5vnQezEDq8T rjJDxbyc25pHvqiPks+ueHmJgS1CFYR1ionza/QcBB1CMahf4QN5PMahC4JWmbPQeFjN hW2w== X-Received: by 10.194.142.209 with SMTP id ry17mr68230845wjb.5.1436774759120; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (p4FC1095F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.193.9.95]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id bg6sm27706247wjc.13.2015.07.13.01.05.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Securely deletion of an HDD To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20150712143525.07b6bdf5@thetick> <55A296A7.5070301@googlemail.com> <55A2D180.2030109@googlemail.com> <55A2DA36.2040006@googlemail.com> From: Volker Armin Hemmann Message-ID: <55A37164.6060605@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:05:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 62eae634-6de5-46ab-9a6a-3dafedd645c2 X-Archives-Hash: 08ef3e9fc5bbc04f6de823e790a86092 Am 12.07.2015 um 23:30 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > wrote: >> read the second link I provided. >> > I did. It contains no theoretical arguments against the possibility yes it does. > of data recovery. Theoretical limits would be ones like the > uncertainty principle. If a given amount of matter could only store a > certain number of bits, and that number of bits is already being > stored, then it would be clearly impossible to recover more. > >> And then google for yourself. > For what? > >> Back then it was very hard. Today it is impossible. You toss a coin for >> every bit. And that is your chance to extract anything. >> > Impossible is a pretty bold claim. You need proof, not evidence that > a particular recovery technique didn't work. I can demonstrate very > clearly that I'm unable to crack DES, but that doesn't make it secure. > they gave you the prove. Others have found the same. If you are unable to understand what they wrote, just say so.