[linuxftw]

For an actual HDD, maybe that would work. For any solid state drive, it would definitely not work. SSDs and similar spread writes across pools of blocks for 'endurance', so a 1TB drive might actually have 2TB worth of flash on it.

[ilyt]

Flash drives have secure erase for that reason, but writing zeroes would most likely trigger TRIM so most data would be out. Still, only most

>so a 1TB drive might actually have 2TB worth of flash on it.

That's overly optimistic

[willcipriano]

With ssds you only have to wipe the internal encryption key.

[JohnFen]

> For an actual HDD, maybe that would work.

It doesn't work as well as you'd think on spinning platters, either. Although it does increase the amount of effort needed to read the data on them.

[Gordonjcp]

Why do you think it doesn't work as well as you'd think?

[JohnFen]

A read/write head does not follow precisely the same path every time. It has a positioning error that makes subsequent reads/writes take place slightly offset from earlier ones.

With the proper equipment and expertise (and helped out by the error correction mechanisms), you can recover a substantial amount of data that has been "overwritten" on an existing track.

This is why "data shredding" applications erase the old data by overwriting it with random data multiple times. That increases the chances that one of those writes will also write over any older data that was shifted slightly to the side.

But that's no guarantee. This problem is why organizations that need an extreme level of security require the complete physical destruction of the platters when decommissioning.

[unaindz]

That's theoretical only. Nobody has ever demonstrated that since the theory started and now hdd complexity and density has increased dramatically.

[JohnFen]

I had to check with some experts on this that I know, to make sure that I wasn't talking nonsense.

I wasn't, exactly, but I also wasn't correct in the modern day. Retrieving erased information from hard drives like this was certainly a thing (a thing that I myself have seen done, so I know first-hand).

However, after hard drives moved beyond MFM it stopped really being possible.

So what I was saying isn't wrong, exactly, but certainly isn't relevant to today's hardware.

[Gordonjcp]

Okay, but how can you determine what the old value was, given that it's now a random value multiplied by a random value with yet another random value added on top?

Hard disks don't record zeros and ones...

[JohnFen]

> but how can you determine what the old value was, given that it's now a random value multiplied by a random value with yet another random value added on top?

It's an extremely difficult problem, and in the best case you won't get a complete copy of old data. That's why this isn't an avenue of attack that you're likely to ever encounter.

This is the sort of thing that would only be considered by very wealthy attackers (governments and corporations), and even then only if they're very certain that the drive contains data of unusually high value.

But it is possible, and has been done, to extract useful data that has been overwritten a single time with zeros.

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah, no, it has not.

It's not possible, because there's no way to distinguish what the previous value was.