| 1 |
Paul Arthur wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-01-17, Maxim Kammerer <mk@×××.su> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > All in all, secure-delete has its uses. What are people supposed to |
| 5 |
> > use instead, dd if=/dev/zero of=/media/sdcard/naked_gf_0001.jpg? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Perhaps 'shred', which is part of coreutils? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
From man shred: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important assumption: that |
| 12 |
the file system overwrites data in place. This is the traditional way |
| 13 |
to do things, but many modern file system designs do not satisfy this |
| 14 |
assumption. The following are examples of file systems on which shred |
| 15 |
is not effective, or is not guaranteed to be effective in all file sys- |
| 16 |
tem modes: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
* log-structured or journaled file systems, such as those supplied with |
| 19 |
AIX and Solaris (and JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Ext3, etc.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In addition, pretty much every flash media that exists today does flash |
| 22 |
translation *and* has spare unaddressable flash for error correction. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The best software can do is to repeatedly overwrite the flash with |
| 25 |
random bytes. (Don't use /dev/zero because clever translation sees |
| 26 |
that other pages already have the same contents, and thus does not |
| 27 |
overwrite any flash cells.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
//Peter |
Archives