Data is stored as magnetized bits on a disk, with north and south representing our two forms of data (ones and zeroes), right? The problem is that we can't perfectly flip poles in any particular bit, and there will be some residual traces of what the bit used to be such as a weaker magnetic pull, fine-grained imperfections, and other forensic factors. So we can use those different pieces of data to figure out what bits were one, two, and even more overwrites in the past (with increasing difficulty every overwrite).
I'm not familiar with similar forensics on Solid State Drives, but I could look into it if you want me to.
So yeah .. increasing difficulty every overwrite. So how many ? Have you tried to do any data recovery after you "deleted" something with a tool that actually overwrites the data ?
For modern drives, overwriting the data once is sufficient (although it's often recommended to do two passes to ensure you cover every bit).
I have never done this myself. The reason the above is true is because you have to have a laboratory with extremely specialized equipment to restore after overwriting, and you may need nation-state level resources to do it. The reason I brought up the fact that it's possible is because we're dealing with a nation-state event (the election), but I doubt they'll go to those forensic measures.
If only you would just provide some resources ... otherwise i just have to say to me it smell like a lot like bullshit and more likely, when such claims were made ... the data was acquired through other methods .
I recognize that Wikipedia isn't a "source," but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence. I'll fully recognize that it's controversial, and that with modern drives, it's probably completely safe to overwrite once.
The "Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy" paper published 2008 claims you are wrong.
You can easily find a copy on google-scholar with the help of sci-hub.
To quote: "The purpose of this paper was a categorical settlement to the controversy surrounding the misconceptions involving the belief that data can be recovered following a wipe procedure. This study has demonstrated that correctly wiped data cannot reasonably be retrieved even if it is of a small size or found only over small parts of the hard drive. Not even with the use of a MFM or other known methods. The belief that a tool can be developed to retrieve gigabytes or terabytes of information from a wiped drive is in error. [...] Further, there is a need for the data to have been written and then wiped on a raw unused drive for there to be any hope of any level of recovery even at the bit level, which does not reflect real situations. It is unlikely that a recovered drive will have not been used for a period of time and the interaction of defragmentation, file copies and general use that overwrites data areas negates any chance of data recovery. The fallacy that data can be forensically recovered using an electron microscope or related means needs to be put to rest."
Like I said deeper in the thread, it's controversial. But we're dealing with nation-state actors who have resources to recover data with "unreasonable" means. They won't be getting the entire clip of Rick Astley you deleted once it's all said and done, and it could be entirely possible that no such method exists.
Data is stored as magnetized bits on a disk, with north and south representing our two forms of data (ones and zeroes), right? The problem is that we can't perfectly flip poles in any particular bit, and there will be some residual traces of what the bit used to be such as a weaker magnetic pull, fine-grained imperfections, and other forensic factors. So we can use those different pieces of data to figure out what bits were one, two, and even more overwrites in the past (with increasing difficulty every overwrite).
I'm not familiar with similar forensics on Solid State Drives, but I could look into it if you want me to.
cipher /w:C
So yeah .. increasing difficulty every overwrite. So how many ? Have you tried to do any data recovery after you "deleted" something with a tool that actually overwrites the data ?
I did ... and i failed to recover anything.
For modern drives, overwriting the data once is sufficient (although it's often recommended to do two passes to ensure you cover every bit).
I have never done this myself. The reason the above is true is because you have to have a laboratory with extremely specialized equipment to restore after overwriting, and you may need nation-state level resources to do it. The reason I brought up the fact that it's possible is because we're dealing with a nation-state event (the election), but I doubt they'll go to those forensic measures.
If only you would just provide some resources ... otherwise i just have to say to me it smell like a lot like bullshit and more likely, when such claims were made ... the data was acquired through other methods .
https://docs.bleachbit.org/doc/shred-files-and-wipe-disks.html
I recognize that Wikipedia isn't a "source," but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence. I'll fully recognize that it's controversial, and that with modern drives, it's probably completely safe to overwrite once.
The "Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy" paper published 2008 claims you are wrong.
You can easily find a copy on google-scholar with the help of sci-hub.
To quote: "The purpose of this paper was a categorical settlement to the controversy surrounding the misconceptions involving the belief that data can be recovered following a wipe procedure. This study has demonstrated that correctly wiped data cannot reasonably be retrieved even if it is of a small size or found only over small parts of the hard drive. Not even with the use of a MFM or other known methods. The belief that a tool can be developed to retrieve gigabytes or terabytes of information from a wiped drive is in error. [...] Further, there is a need for the data to have been written and then wiped on a raw unused drive for there to be any hope of any level of recovery even at the bit level, which does not reflect real situations. It is unlikely that a recovered drive will have not been used for a period of time and the interaction of defragmentation, file copies and general use that overwrites data areas negates any chance of data recovery. The fallacy that data can be forensically recovered using an electron microscope or related means needs to be put to rest."
Like I said deeper in the thread, it's controversial. But we're dealing with nation-state actors who have resources to recover data with "unreasonable" means. They won't be getting the entire clip of Rick Astley you deleted once it's all said and done, and it could be entirely possible that no such method exists.