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 4A28A138D11 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E56DFE0925; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com (mail-qg0-f50.google.com [209.85.192.50]) (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 B50AEE091D for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgef3 with SMTP id f3so104480736qge.0 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:03:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=mlos+iqzAlKvy1juD4OQI/M3mO3SRnbSszT4OcqQURc=; b=lA850fccEuXtYau6slMIbsZzJ98NINRpu+J1ETRSfiFSHVUy32/YN7EMNfhC4RcghF k3gtuDsV3Ei4tOFdj7pql4uPdrViOY49zP+P75V1HQw69WtTb92sPgdKk84jDR+9Y/iN JEWpUxu5wmUodxuRerpjkk9PVCqADcyJyX2b9tufBk29m6o57WLKofEueVDO7bSWA2aW qSmPOwKoTRkU6m8Ai+7c4mWN0sus0IXkD48KJ2CnIQ6arNAegNeRyAEhP8yus3IFNzvV vTjkiv68c61/vbK52lCmOZIfESzcKpC6+xg8cVcHeAGMRxUKW5vSTdnAd2PsLsgo8upa +Syg== 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 X-Received: by 10.55.18.9 with SMTP id c9mr32264933qkh.14.1436785408079; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.34.68 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:03:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55A37164.6060605@googlemail.com> References: <20150712143525.07b6bdf5@thetick> <55A296A7.5070301@googlemail.com> <55A2D180.2030109@googlemail.com> <55A2DA36.2040006@googlemail.com> <55A37164.6060605@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:03:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _YnsRMhSTQEM_7cb9giGHBS2zJw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Securely deletion of an HDD From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: d7eeb95c-df03-4b06-b14b-ec6d2963b129 X-Archives-Hash: 33ba3e5ec0579ae4faab2e8f28649900 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 12.07.2015 um 23:30 schrieb Rich Freeman: >> 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. > By all means point out more specifically where you think they made a theoretical argument. I see lots of talk of measurements and lots of empirical-looking numbers. Theoretical arguments tend to involve lots of h-bars over pis and such. As far as others finding the same goes, that also tends to characterize this as an experimental/practical argument. You generally don't tend to have publications of reproductions of theoretical arguments since about all you can do is either point out an error in the math or extend it. Such experiments are useful, but they're not airtight. It is the difference between AES and a one-time pad. The former has no known method of circumvention and seems really hard to attack, the latter is theoretically impossible to attack if correctly implemented, but probably impossible to truly implement correctly. I don't worry about using AES, but I'm not under any illusions that it is completely unbreakable. -- Rich