On Dec 20, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:

james hughes wrote:
Not to add a cold blanket to this...
This would be mostly a "vanity erase" not really a serious "security erase" since it will not over write the remnants of remapped sectors.

Indeed and as you said there is other software to deal with this for those types of customers that need that. There are also physical destruction methods as well.

This is intended as a defense in depth measure and also a sufficiently good measure for the customers that don't need full compliance with NIST like requirements that need degausing or physical destruction.

Govt, finance, healthcare all require the NIST overwrite...

It is intended to make customers more comfortable about handing disks back to their vendor.

These are the people that have the tools to get the data back.

Today we need to manually run format(1M)'s analyze/purge for that.

Most banks do not return the disks, they return the top plate to get the warrantee credit and then just keep the disks...

Are you saying that you don't think this is sufficiently useful that we should implement this in ZFS or are you just pointing out that for a some security policies this is not enough ?

I think more the former. Lets also discuss who this policy will be enough for.

The load on the system may be as large as encrypting the data if you purge all files, and if you don't then you have the problem of finding all former copies of the data.

The complexity of implementation may be on par with encryption.

The caveats that need to be placed in the man pages on when this is not enough are problematic, and if the customer doesn't read it...

It just seems to be a lot of work for not a lot of benefit.

My mind is not make up here, so these discussions are good...

--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
security-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to