Date: 21 May 1999 18:59:32 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: gc <gc@virtual-pc.com> Cc: tim@iafrica.com.na, Joel Maslak <jmaslak@wind-river.com>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Secure Deletion Message-ID: <xzpyaiipde3.fsf@localhost.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: gc's message of "Fri, 21 May 1999 09:31:16 %2B0100" References: <3.0.6.32.19990520095507.00840010@india.wind-river.com> <374474D4.2263@iafrica.com.na> <374519D4.403016C2@virtual-pc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
gc <gc@virtual-pc.com> writes: > Could someone enlighten me as to why the first move is not to write back > an inverted copy of the data to even out the residual field before > resorting to other patterns? (this assumes you are deleting a file and > thus still have the data before you start). Because an inverted copy is encoded (almost) exactly like the original copy. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpyaiipde3.fsf>