From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 19 10:56:07 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0681106566B for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:56:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carmel_ny@hotmail.com) Received: from blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.154]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849768FC1A for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:56:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLU0-SMTP315 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s15.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:56:00 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [76.182.104.150] X-Originating-Email: [carmel_ny@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net ([76.182.104.150]) by BLU0-SMTP315.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:56:00 -0700 Received: from scorpio (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: carmel_ny@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3WdBwZ3n8Jz2CG62 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:55:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:55:57 -0400 From: Carmel To: FreeBSD In-Reply-To: References: <201207190253.q6J2r3p0070058@mail.r-bonomi.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.3) Face: 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2012 10:56:00.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[15266100:01CD659D] Subject: Re: fsck on FAT32 filesystem? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:56:07 -0000 On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:15:17 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar articulated: > > 1) There's a _reason_ the gov't requires hard drives with anthing > > higher than 'somewhat' classified data on them to be =physically= > > destroyed before leving the secure area. > > no. for modern hard drives it was already proved that > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/disk bs=1m > > is enough to make data unreadable. > > for very old drives it may not Would you be so kind as to point out the proof of that statement? Please provide an address or location where the documentation supporting that statement can be found. By the way, "NOT READABLE" is not equal to "UNRECOVERABLE". -- Carmel ✌ carmel_ny@hotmail.com