From owner-freebsd-security Fri May 21 10: 0: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B76C159E8 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 10:00:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id SAA79962; Fri, 21 May 1999 18:59:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: gc Cc: tim@iafrica.com.na, Joel Maslak , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Secure Deletion References: <3.0.6.32.19990520095507.00840010@india.wind-river.com> <374474D4.2263@iafrica.com.na> <374519D4.403016C2@virtual-pc.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 21 May 1999 18:59:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: gc's message of "Fri, 21 May 1999 09:31:16 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org gc 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