Slashdot Mirror


Where Old Hard Disks (with Digital Secrets) Go To Die

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Justin George writes at McClatchy that in a 20,000-square-foot warehouse, where visitors are required to trade in a driver's license for a visitor's badge, some of the nation's secrets are torn apart, reduced to sand or demagnetized until they are forever silent. Need to destroy a rugged Toughbook laptop that might have been used in war? E-End will use a high-powered magnetic process known as degaussing to erase its hard drive of any memory. A computer monitor that might have some top-secret images left on it? Crushed and ground into recyclable glass. Laser sights for weapons? Torn into tiny shards of metal. "We make things go away," says Arleen Chafitz, owner and CEO of e-End Secure Data Sanitization and Electronics Recycling, a company with sixteen employees that destroys hard drives, computers, monitors, phones and other sensitive equipment that governments and corporations don't want in the wrong hands. Chafitz say the information technology departments at typical companies might not have the proper tools or training to adequately dispose of data. IT departments focus on fixing and restoring data, they say, while data-wiping companies focus on just the opposite."

18 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Using encryption is the better option by ffkom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using encryption not only saves you effort when the harddisk dies after years, it also provides security benefits during the drives lifetime and makes warranty-exchanges of young defect drives painless.

    1. Re:Using encryption is the better option by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      wrong point of view. you have no way of knowing what algorithms will fall to simpler solutions or more powerful solvers in the future. and your favorite method might have a back door. or perhaps the key was make known

    2. Re:Using encryption is the better option by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course having a key of all zeroes is a bad mistake. That's why I always go away from that mistake as far as possible, by using a key which has no zero altogether. That is, a key of all ones. Clearly as opposite of the most insecure key, that's the most secure one. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Using encryption is the better option by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.

      Nobody has yet to show they managed to get back even a single file from a modern drive after it has had a simple zero wipe yet all these "security sites" still hold onto old wive's tales that haven't been true since the days of the MFM drives! Protip: The reason you could recover files from those old drives? The motors were VERY inaccurate and could slip the tracks, thus leaving tracks after an erase cycle. A modern drive have tracks sooo small there is no way in hell its gonna be missing tracks, you'd know there were issues because the drive would fail before it would miss a track.

      So I wonder how long voodoo from the age of DOS is gonna be taken as fact? An encrypted drive with a single wipe would insure there was zero data to recover and wouldn't be based on 30+ year old info, it would also deal with the real issue, the fact that there is no way to securely wipe an SSD that I know of, because SSDs don't "erase", just mark sectors as available to minimize writes.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Using encryption is the better option by Poingggg · · Score: 2

      Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.\

      So I wonder how long voodoo from the age of DOS is gonna be taken as fact? An encrypted drive with a single wipe would insure there was zero data to recover and wouldn't be based on 30+ year old info, it would also deal with the real issue, the fact that there is no way to securely wipe an SSD that I know of, because SSDs don't "erase", just mark sectors as available to minimize writes.

      Maybe because degaussing takes seconds (i think) and wiping takes hours? Not unimportant for a business I would think. (You are right about the SSD's though).

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    5. Re: Using encryption is the better option by DigiShaman · · Score: 2
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Using encryption is the better option by couchslug · · Score: 2

      While encryption is desirable, hard disks, all of them, are trivially cheap compared to loss of classified into.

      When in doubt, shred.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Using encryption is the better option by drkim · · Score: 2

      A computer monitor that might have some top-secret images left on it?

      Seriously? How does stupidity of this level actually make it to the real world?>

      Monitor burn-in.

      http://stevenandy.files.wordpr...

  2. Duh by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Silicone Heaven, otherwise where do all the calculators go?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  3. Jump The Shark by retroworks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Data destruction industry has finally "jumped the shark" with the posting of the Guardian Newspaper's hard drive destruction just a few hours ago. This sales pitch shows the billion dollar industry behind selling insurance to people afraid of digital losses via old hardware. http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    Identity theft and trade secret losses are real, very real risks. But physically destroying hardware is to data protections as toilet paper on the loo lid is to AIDS prevention. The real threats are phishing (getting employees to log in credentials on fake websites), and loss of active PCs (theft of laptops from the back of cars), and the new credit-card swiping devices used at Target stores are the actual risks.

    I have heard the argument that physically destroying the disks eliminates the potential for bad apple employees to skirt the wiping of disks, and that with physical destruction you really control human error. I say bullhockey. When I have a staffer wiping disks, I can inventory the disks and randomly sample them to see if the data has been erased, and replace the staffer if necessary. If the drives are thrown in a mechanical shredder, how do I know a PARTICULAR drive was thrown in the shredder? How will I ever catch the bad apple? Try sifting through the scrap fluff for serial numbers to make sure the right one went through the machine.

    The big opportunity is "digital haystacks", putting randomized and false data out, especially metadata. If enough bad data written on to drives, it has the added benefit of wasting the time of Russian hackers who have too much of it on their hands.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Jump The Shark by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those smarter drives do insane things that having a pool of surplus disk blocks and having a virtual disk cylinder/sector map that can swap out old blocks that have become damaged and replace them with a new block. Just because you think you are writing on cylinder 32, sector 5, block 3, doesn't mean it's really at that location. Theoretically, it might be possible to fill up every possible block with data, but that's no guarantee.

      So the only safe way is to destroy the hard disk drives.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. Directed at Justin George by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

    This is /. brother, I'm sure everyone here knows what the hell a degaussing gun does without the description there.

    Due explain how other than burn in a computer monitor may still contain top secret images though.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Directed at Justin George by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I was about to post the same question.

      But given the over-explanation for degaussing maybe it's something as simple as burn-in on old CRT monitors that did status displays for weapons panels/nuclear reactors, etc; ?

  5. Degaussing? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Degaussing? On a modern hard disk, with that level of coercivity? Bloody amateurs. Degaussing won't do shit to a modern hard disk.

    A dd zerofill pass is actually enough to stop the NSA and GCHQ in a determined 'recovery' attack, for any sector that's actually overwritten, to their immense frustration. Meanwhile, remapped sectors and removing HPAs are the domain of ATA Secure Erase - Enhanced, and all the firmware seems to do just what it says on the tin for that. One pass of each would be just fine.

    Bets are only off if the drive firmware's implanted (in which case, they probably already exfiltrated the data while it was running, anyway). If you suspect that, kill it with fire: you need to raise the platter above the Curie point. This means heat. That actually destroys the data. You could destroy the drive in any reasonable form by shredding it, but there's little point in that - see above - you could just erase it.

  6. Simpler, incinerate with common trash by Framboise · · Score: 2

    My town has a huge incinerator for common trash that will bring any computer component well over 1000C: most computer component would be finely destroyed to atomic level. As a bonus the incinerator produces electricity.
    It would suffice to secure the transport to the incinerator and let heat finish the task.

  7. Paid Ad Again by fat_mike · · Score: 2

    EPC does the same thing. Though they don't degauss the drive. They completely destroy it. I am fortunate to have one of their recycling centers in town and believe me there is nothing like watching your hard drives go up a 30 foot conveyor belt into a 30 foot tall shredder and come out as slivers.

    I don't work for them, I'm just damn happy they exist. Capitalism at its best, find a need and fill it.

  8. Disgusting. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of us firearm enthusiasts would love to buy used some of those military gun sights. I cant afford a $7800 laser sight, so they just destroy it to protect the manufacturer's high price point. It's why we dumped tens of thousands of Jeeps into the ocean instead of allowing Americans to buy them surplus, it would drive down the price of new cars and we cant have rich people making less money.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Disgusting. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then it's the idiot managers paradox. Because even if I gave you a $50,000 holographic night vision scope, 99% of the population could not hit a target unless they had the skill to actually shoot a gun. You know those videos of samalis holding the AK 47 above their head firing? all they are hitting are buildings and the ground, if they were fighting a trained enemy force they would be wiped out in mere moments. A well trained soldier from a western or eastern country could easily take out 20 untrained soldiers without effort or fear.

      So someone having it is not a risk. Just like how they whine about people being able to buy defused grenades at surplus stores. Yes, someone with an IQ above 120 can make them work again, but the risk is so low it's not funny. Plus it is a lot easier to make a new one from gas pipe than trying to fix a Vietnam era grenade. But it does not stop uneducated people from being horrified that I can go and buy "grenades" for $5.00 each.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.