No disk space because of CCleaner

[Telecaster]

Hi,

 

I'm having a huge problem with CCleaner. I used the Gutmann Method to wipe my free space, but now I have 0 bytes available because of CCleaner. Does anyone know where I can find the huge file that CCleaner creates so I can manually delete it?

Thanks in advance.

 

Telecaster

[Nergal]

two ways

1) run wipe freespace again (then never run it again until you sell the Harddrive) it'll delete the files created; and don't use gutman it's usless and you're really going to burn out your drive doing those things

 

2) look on the c:\ drive at the top most level you'll see the file you're looking for

[Telecaster]

Thanks for replying. However, I haven't found the file in c:\

This is what it looks like: http://i54.tinypic.com/2cmou93.png

 

And when I run the free space wiper again, it actually wipes the 1.90 GB free disk space, which is all I supposedly have left.

[Winapp2.ini]

Download the program Treeview, it should show you the largest directory on the computer which is probably where the WFS file is.

[ident]

Thanks for replying. However, I haven't found the file in c:\

This is what it looks like: http://i54.tinypic.com/2cmou93.png

 

And when I run the free space wiper again, it actually wipes the 1.90 GB free disk space, which is all I supposedly have left.

 

I would also suggest on reading what wipe free space actually does before using it again.

[Telecaster]

I downloaded TreeSize. Then I saw it was in my Recycle Bin, but I still couldn't see it in there. And I don't know what happened, but now it's back to normal. Thanks a lot for your help, people.

By the way: I do know what wipe free disk space does, but my computer crashed during the process, so I guess that's where I should put the blame.

 

Thanks again.

[Mike Langlois]

and don't use gutman it's usless and you're really going to burn out your drive doing those things

 

Is it really useless?

[kroozer]

Is it really useless?

Yes. Read Dr Gutmann's explanation "In the time since this paper was published - - - " under Criticism here.

[DennisD]

Have a read here ...

 

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Secure-deletion-a-single-overwrite-will-do-it-739699.html

 

A long debated subject, but most folk on here wouldn't even contemplate a 35 pass overwrite.

[kroozer]

Good reading, Dennis.

 

And here is Feenberg's paper Can Intelligence Agencies Read Overwritten Data? A response to Gutmann.

 

Edited.

[Augeas]

The cruel irony, for the original poster anyway, is that CC's Gutmann applies to secure file deletion, not wipe free space.

[ident]

The cruel irony, for the original poster anyway, is that CC's Gutmann applies to secure file deletion, not wipe free space.

 

There has always been this haze of WFS is set to 1 pass defaulted. Is this documented? Who first stated this? Maybe it use to be in earlier versions.

 

None of us who frequently answer WFS questions even bother with the tool. But if you take a look for a second....

 

 

CLEANING CANCELLED - (8.302 secs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cleaning is incomplete
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 bytes removed.
Secure file deletion enabled - DOD 5220.22-M (3 passes)

 

CLEANING CANCELLED - (2.200 secs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cleaning is incomplete
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 bytes removed.
Secure file deletion enabled - Gutmann (35 passes)

 

So in actual fact CCleaner does appear to be now able or always use to be able???? to WFS with selected passes. The Two pasted texts are from a cancellation of WFS

 

For give me if that is not what you was referring to Augeas

[ident]

@ Mike Langlois, Telecaster - 35 passes

 

Is it really pointless???? The simple answer is no it is not pointless. Your purpose is to make sensitive data unrecoverable. 35 passes will achieve this. Complete and utter waste of time? Completely, as what Koozer meant.

 

35 passes was designed to cover multiple patterns designed for different drives. Newer drives have different encoding techniques making many of the passes a total waste of time. Remember 35 passes was designed a long time ago.

 

Are you expecting a computer forensic expert to be examining your drive any time soon? Of course not. Do you have friends with a magnetic forensic scope? Of course not.

 

No intelligence agencies has ever claimed to of been able to recover over written data. One pass of true random data is enough.

 

The only reason i can see why 35 passes is used is to stay in check with other privacy erasers that offer it. It would also be requested in suggestions more then a built in up dater.

 

Some more information on the subject that we have answered here http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=28748&st=0&p=172178&hl=magnetic%20overspill&fromsearch=1entry172178

[Augeas]

Hi Ident,

 

I'm sure that in the early days one of the devs stated that wfs was one pass, but for the life of me I can't find the reference. Yes, CC does report that the varoius deletion methods are used on WFS (I'm testing on a small flash drive, no way am I going to run it on my hd). My assumption that only one pass is used is also based on practicalities. If 35 pass is used, and you're wiping say 100 gb of a disk (and that is not an excessive amount) then you would be writing 3.5 terabytes of data. Now that is an excessive amount, especially if you have absolute faith in Piriform and believe that each write is flushed out of cache to disk before the next pass. I am not yet convinced that the secure overwrite message is specific to wfs, rather than generic to all deletes.

 

I don't know why Piriform doesn't clarify this. I have asked for clarification several times, to no avail. My tests on a ridiculously small amount of data indicate that there is no difference in elasped time, nor does the flash drive indicator light flash any more frequently, when running normal wfs or 35-pass wfs. Still, speculation is interesting. No?

 

I've just chosen one of the small deleted files on my flash drive and secureley overwritten it using Gutmann. Indicator light flashes when doing a wfs with Gutmann, 8 or 9 times, elaspsed time under 1 sec. No of flashes when securely deleting one file with Gutmann, 45 ish, elapsed time 11.5 sec. I'm convincing myself that it's one pass.

[ident]

Hi Ident,

 

I'm sure that in the early days one of the devs stated that wfs was one pass, but for the life of me I can't find the reference. Yes, CC does report that the varoius deletion methods are used on WFS (I'm testing on a small flash drive, no way am I going to run it on my hd). My assumption that only one pass is used is also based on practicalities. If 35 pass is used, and you're wiping say 100 gb of a disk (and that is not an excessive amount) then you would be writing 3.5 terabytes of data. Now that is an excessive amount, especially if you have absolute faith in Piriform and believe that each write is flushed out of cache to disk before the next pass. I am not yet convinced that the secure overwrite message is specific to wfs, rather than generic to all deletes.

 

I don't know why Piriform doesn't clarify this. I have asked for clarification several times, to no avail. My tests on a ridiculously small amount of data indicate that there is no difference in elasped time, nor does the flash drive indicator light flash any more frequently, when running normal wfs or 35-pass wfs. Still, speculation is interesting. No?

 

 

I have never tried to wfs on this machine, let alone using 35 passes so can not assist with the time delay. I do know how ever on a WFS friends machine many years ago 35 passes took 4 days. But like you say, interesting......

 

I do feel Piriforms documentation does not reflect the same high standards as there applications. And a over haul of it would be nice to see. I do feel some more user friendly messages would benefit inexperienced users. But that is off thread topic but maybe a topic of suggestion to think about in the future?

 

 

edit***

 

at last part I will test both 1,35 passes on a old machine here tomorrow and time.

[Aethec]

I believe WFS doesn't use CCleaner's settings - it's always 35 passes.

+1 for the more user-friendly messages - I already put one in French for WFS, but obviously cannot do it for other languages.