silver.bullet at zoho.com
Sat Dec 2 19:59:40 UTC 2017
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:07:39 -0500, Adam McClure wrote:
>On 12/02/2017 10:59 AM, Xen wrote:
>> Ralf Mardorf schreef op 02-12-2017 16:23:
>>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 12:48:39 +0100, Xen wrote:
>>>> Ralf Mardorf schreef op 02-12-2017 9:31:
>>>>> CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important
>>>>> assumption: that the file system overwrites data in place. This
>>>>> is the traditional way to do things, but many modern file system
>>>>> designs do not satisfy this assumption.
>>>> If I recall correctly the next piece says that this only applies to
>>>> Ext3/4 when journal mode is DATA, which is not the default ;-).
>>> While this is correct, it's still worth to mention it.
>>>> Thank you for creating noise ;-).
>>> I wouldn't call such a notice noise. This notice - incompletely
>>> quoting the manpage - is indeed biased, but since I provided the
>>> pointer to the extraction of the manpage, the reader is free to
>>> read the complete manpage. Just mentioning that the history could
>>> be shred without giving a hint to pitfalls, is much more biased and
>>> furthermore it's dangerous.
>> If you hadn't made a biased statement, I would not have had an issue.
>> Because then you don't create the impression that this is a very
>> serious problem, when it isn't.
>> Creating fear in people for no reason, why do you do that?
>How is mentioning a warning that is halfway down on the manpage
>"creating fear in people for no reason"?
>It was saying to be careful with the command, not creating fear.
Thank you Adam,
let alone that at least some users aren't aware that there is a
difference between deleting (removing) a file and shredding it, on what
ever shred level. Regarding digital forensics the "deepness" how the
file is shred could matter a lot, too.
More information about the ubuntu-users