Quote: "This easy-to-use Windows software will overwrite sensitive data even up to 35 times "

So sad to see software vendors, and Giveaway - continuing to hype the now-deprecated 35 overwrites.
The author of that 35 pass procedure has written to clarify that 35 passes was for old technology disks (pre 1995). It would be so much better if developers would be clear about overwriting data - and not try to make people think that 35 must be better...
Actual Peter Gutmann statement:
'Epilogue
In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data. In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any drive since it targets a blend of scenarios involving all types of (normally-used) encoding technology, which covers everything back to 30+-year-old MFM methods (if you don't understand that statement, re-read the paper). If you're using a drive which uses encoding technology X, you only need to perform the passes specific to X, and you never need to perform all 35 passes. For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do. As the paper says, "A good scrubbing with random data will do about as well as can be expected". This was true in 1996, and is still true now.'

Bruce Tech Guy  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+37)

Vertalen

Bruce Tech Guy
When I see the 35 writes still included in programs of this type makes me wonder how much the developer understands about this type of security.
Because of that I pass on today's offer.

<b>Bruce Tech Guy</b> When I see the 35 writes still included in programs of this type makes me wonder how much the developer understands about this type of security. Because of that I pass on today's offer.
Save | Cancel

XP-Man  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+14)

Vertalen

Any
The vast majority of people have SSDs? Really? Even if that was true, a lot would have HDDs as well.

<b>Any</b> The vast majority of people have SSDs? Really? Even if that was true, a lot would have HDDs as well.
Save | Cancel

Jerry  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+13)

Vertalen

A widely respected German developer, Ascomp seems of late to have been re-jigging its product portfolio with new versions while providing greater clarity as to what's free and what's not. This has been especially notable in its excellent Synchredible the only back-up app I ever recommend to friends and family on the grounds of simplicity, speed and effectiveness:

https://www.ascomp.de/en/products/show/product/synchredible/tab/details

and whose only drawback used to be a nag screen of irritatingly intrusive frequency urging users to pay for a commercial license.

Recently, however, Ascomp seems to have had a change of heart. The nagging is non-disruptive and infrequent. In fact: the developer makes it plain that if its software is being used by a home user, then that's fine: no charge. Which, therefore, brings us to today's giveaway, because yes, Secure Eraser is free to home users:

https://www.ascomp.de/en/shop/show/group/10

there being not a jot of difference in practice between Secure Eraser Standard and Secure Eraser Professional apart from the occasional, and now low-key, nag.

On which basis then, today's giveaway isn't hobbled by the spectre of a re-install cost; if you take advantage of the offer, but then subsequently 'lose' this Pro version, simply download the free, Standard version -- because whether as freeware or commercialware, Ascomp's track record has long been pretty darn good. As to whether this eraser is better than every other eraser out there, that's down to you to decide.

About the only comment I'd make is that I'm very surprised and not a little baffled to see Ascomp referencing Peter Gutmann as a type of 'standard' when really, Ascomp should know much better. Peter himself made it clear more than 10 years ago that the 35-pass erasure technique is a complete waste of time and effort quote:

Epilogue: In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques.

As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data. In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any drive since it targets a blend of scenarios involving all types of (normally-used) encoding technology, which covers everything back to 30+-year-old MFM methods (if you don’t understand that statement, re-read the paper).

If you’re using a drive which uses encoding technology X, you only need to perform the passes specific to X, and you never need to perform all 35 passes. For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do. As the paper says, “A good scrubbing with random data will do about as well as can be expected”. This was true in 1996, and is still true now.

C'mon, Ascomp. Wake up. Referring to 'the Gutmann Standard' makes it look as though you don't actually know what you're doing.

MikeR  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+10)

Vertalen

MikeR
I already replied to another similar comment above, but once again (and since you already know us, you should also know how we work): We develop softwares with the help of our users. This means, that every new function and improvement has been requested by the users. Peter Gutmann standard was one of the request in early development of Secure Eraser and actually it has been requested a lot of times. Telling people that it doesn't make sense anymore to use this standard isn't what they most of them want. They see other software products offer this standard, so they want to have it in their solution, too. If we like that? No, it was a lot of time to implement it and knowing the background it made it to a big waste of time. Anyway, it's the user's choice - of course, we do NOT select Gutmann standard as default deletion standard and in our discussion board we clarified several times that there is no advantage at all using the 35 times overwriting.

<b>MikeR</b> I already replied to another similar comment above, but once again (and since you already know us, you should also know how we work): We develop softwares with the help of our users. This means, that every new function and improvement has been requested by the users. Peter Gutmann standard was one of the request in early development of Secure Eraser and actually it has been requested a lot of times. Telling people that it doesn't make sense anymore to use this standard isn't what they most of them want. They see other software products offer this standard, so they want to have it in their solution, too. If we like that? No, it was a lot of time to implement it and knowing the background it made it to a big waste of time. Anyway, it's the user's choice - of course, we do NOT select Gutmann standard as default deletion standard and in our discussion board we clarified several times that there is no advantage at all using the 35 times overwriting.
Save | Cancel

Andreas Stroebel  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+15)

Vertalen

I was a bit sceptical about this offer and I am not so much interested in the functionality of this program, but the website of the maker; clean, all contactinfo available, no nonsense, convinced me. Installed it to see if the impression of the website was an indication of the GOTD. Program made an even better impression, clear, lots of options, small footprint. Program also settles itself in the rightclick menu in windows explorer which is handy with files but not so much when the target is a partition. When more than one people share a computer this could cause a risk. (I would like to see an option to disable the rightclick entry when on partitions, or to block deleting when the command is given from the rightclick menu). Very surprised that i liked the design of the program so much but I don´t need this program, however, if you need this kind of functionality, give it a try. Ascomp has some other programs "free for private purposes", and I will try some of them, including the one mentioned by MikeR.

Calimero  –  8 years ago  –  Vond je deze reactie nuttig? ja | nee (+13)

Vertalen