From owner-freebsd-security Wed May 19 22:59:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ints.ru (ints.ru [194.67.173.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA36515266 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:59:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ilmar@ws-ilmar.ints.ru) Received: from ws-ilmar.ints.ru (ws-ilmar.ints.ru [194.67.173.16]) by ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA06264; Thu, 20 May 1999 09:59:42 +0400 (MSD) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ws-ilmar.ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18006; Thu, 20 May 1999 09:59:40 +0400 (MSD) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:59:40 +0400 (MSD) From: "Ilmar S. Habibulin" To: Warner Losh Cc: posix1e@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: secure deletion In-Reply-To: <199905192041.OAA01463@harmony.village.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 19 May 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > Does it doe the DoD recommended patter of deletion? That is overwrite > the blocks with sever different series of bit patterns to make it > impossible to recover using the usual techniques, or is it just a > bzero of the blocks in question? The former is secure deletion, the > latter is too insecure for most people that want this feature... Bzero can be changed to some other function, is suppose that this is not a question. The question is if this thing is needed by comunity. > P.S. I do think a port of even the latter would be a good thing. So you vote for it. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message