Can I put in a plea to get rid of the Gutmann overwrite options? I know Gutmann has been discussed to death in these forums, but it's well into 2011, and Gutmann is still with us. It's a method to secure !990's Winchester disk technology against an event that has never been shown substantively to take place (i.e. the interpretation of overwritten data).
I dare say that some users blindly following the Gutmann path weren't even born before it was obsolete. Removing Gutmann would save code, save users' time and disks, and show that Piriform at least know what they are doing. Grasp the moral high ground.
(This is not a thread to discuss the merits of Gutmann. A search will reveal enough of all that.)
Yeah get rid of it. I've always wondered if it actually even worked correctly, meaning it would be done in a flash compared to a simple 1 pass which I know works as confirmed by Recuva.
Unfortunately I can't agree in the terms there wouldn't be need for overwrite files/folders/diskdrives
Ok it may be an old fashion technique use Gutmann but certainly better than leave the not yet overwritten files on the surface just there they are.
Myself always uses the 7 passes setting, another choice would be DOD as I don't trust only one pass is enough.
Further on I believe there are things to win by doing this in get rid of problems before make clean install on drives. Much can affect an installing process to stall like malware, corruption & failures in MBR to name a few.
Further on I believe there are things to win by doing this in get rid of problems before make clean install on drives. Much can affect an installing process to stall like malware, corruption & failures in MBR to name a few.
Totally disagree.
A non-over-write format and half minute partition creation should eliminated any malware influence and allow a clean installation with uncorrupted MBR.
In my view the only conceivable benefits of an over-write (which need be ONLY SINGLE PASS) is that after the clean installation has experienced use (and abuse) :-
any file recovery by RECUVA or its ilk will only resurrect files deleted AFTER the install ;
RECUVA etc results will not tantalise with the possibility of seeing the files that pre-existed the install ;
RECUVA etc results will not threaten with the possibility of resurrecting malware that pre-existed the install ;
Most users won't be using it, but for the ubber paranoid, it is peace of mind.
Why take it out?
Sure, most people don't worry about their confidential data falling into the wrong hands.
But the more precious your data is, the more you would worry.
At this point, it isn't about prolonging the life of the drive, but rather eradicating all data in a totally 100% un-erasable way using any method (electron microscopy) etc...
Why get rid of it? Because it's pointless and irrelevant. I can't think of an analogy, except your pc waiting ten minutes at bootup to let the valves warm up. You don't have valves? You don't have Gutmann's disk coding either.
I want Gutmann!
You don't have Winchester disks.
I want it!
You were never supposed to run all 35 passes anyway.
I want it!
Gutmann said it wasn't relevant in 1996.
I want it!
The problem it addresses has never been shown to exist.
I want it!
I realise two things. That like drowning witches and kittens, and rubbing that cheap Chinese plastic statue on top of the one-arm bandit, people are unfathomable beyond any reasoning. And, as much as it irritates me, Piriform probably won't get rid of Gutmann.
Turn it on and leave it on for lets say at least two years, use it several times each day, then get back to us in the Hardware forum area about that failing hard disk.
I personally will sometimes use the simple 1-pass in CCleaner (and in another program I also use which integrates in the shell) but anything more than that is rather pointless and a waste of time, especially when things are in the MFT area you'll never be able to get rid of - short of barbecuing your hard disk over a plasma torch.
Turn it on and leave it on for lets say at least two years, use it several times each day, then get back to us in the Hardware forum area about that failing hard disk.
I personally will sometimes use the simple 1-pass in CCleaner (and in another program I also use which integrates in the shell) but anything more than that is rather pointless and a waste of time, especially when things are in the MFT area you'll never be able to get rid of - short of barbecuing your hard disk over a plasma torch.
What do you mean by never get rid of?
If you format the drive & clean it externally (USB connection), then the MFT should be a clean MFT without any prior data, right?
I realize if you do it from within Windows, the MFT still contains files, but if you erase a totally blank drive, it should be gone, right?
Why get rid of it? Because it's pointless and irrelevant. I can't think of an analogy, except your pc waiting ten minutes at bootup to let the valves warm up. You don't have valves? You don't have Gutmann's disk coding either.
You don't have Winchester disks.
You were never supposed to run all 35 passes anyway.
The problem it addresses has never been shown to exist.
True, I don't have Winchester disks.
But Gutmann hasn't been shown not to work, correct?
Running all 35 passes isn't meant for drive life, it is meant to be used on a drive you are disposing of, anyway.
If you run a business, you can never be too safe with customer data.
Why would it hurt to leave Gutmann in for someone that wants to be sure their data is gone?
Would you feel safer if a company was disposing of their customer drives with them running 1 pass, or 35?
Do you want to risk that someone with the right know how can run the right data recovery program & pull it all up, simply because you only ran 1 pass?
If you run a business, you can never be too safe with customer data.
Is it possible any commercial enterprise using Piriform products possesses data with a higher sensitivity level than the US Department of Defense or the National Security Agency?
Is it possible any commercial enterprise using Piriform products possesses data with a higher sensitivity level than the US Department of Defense or the National Security Agency?
