Eraser Functions

EraserBaba

New Member
I installed Eraser an ran it on all my local drives, from what I observed it like it was wipe my hard drive and not the free space.

Does this program wipe an entire drive or just the free space?
 

Robbie

Member
EraserBaba said:
I installed Eraser an ran it on all my local drives, from what I observed it like it was wipe my hard drive and not the free space.

Does this program wipe an entire drive or just the free space?
Eraser wipes the free space. If it wiped the drive you would soon know - you wouldn't be able to boot your computer.

DBAN wipes the entire drive.
 

EraserBaba

New Member
Thanks, it just seemed that way because under the progress bar filenames were being shown.

Another question to anyone who can answer it,

After the free space is wiped, how can I clear the names from the master file table?

I heard that Eraser can do that but I cannot find the option.

Does Eraser do that by default?

Ok, Sorry two questions :twisted:.
 

Joel

Active Member
After the Free space is wiped then the MFT may be erased. It is not a thorough clearing since the MFT is itself a complicated beast and the OS has handles open to it all the time.

Joel
 

Overwriter

Active Member
Joel said:
After the Free space is wiped then the MFT may be erased. It is not a thorough clearing since the MFT is itself a complicated beast and the OS has handles open to it all the time.

Joel
Will Eraser V6 be able to do a better job of clearing the MFT than V5 can ?
 

Joel

Active Member
You'll have to define what is meant by a better job. If you mean less chance of corruption, yes. But if you mean more thorough, no. We are not going to use low-level access like in v5 since in Vista low-level access is removed.

Joel
 

Overwriter

Active Member
Unfortunately I was meaning better as in a more thorough clean.

As I don’t know the technical details I wonder if you could perhaps explain what this is going to mean for V6 users running Vista ? Are they going to be less secure after a pass with Eraser than an XP user is now ?

Is there really nothing that can be done to improve the MFT cleaning process ?

Also if V6 is used on XP will V6 be able to employ a lower access than it does with Vista ? I guess this question is can V6 differentiate between XP and Vista and change how it cleans the MFT or will it just be the same for both ?


Thank you.
:)
 

Joel

Active Member
Overwriter said:
Unfortunately I was meaning better as in a more thorough clean.

As I don’t know the technical details I wonder if you could perhaps explain what this is going to mean for V6 users running Vista ? Are they going to be less secure after a pass with Eraser than an XP user is now ?
Not if they let their erasure pass run to completion. If they run their erasures to completion the algorithm will be the same as that in v5. FAT32 users however will lose their FAT old entries erase.

Even so, in v5 these erasures were not directly writing to the MFT or FAT for NTFS and FAT32 respectively. They'd simply make files to try to expand the MFT in NTFS and thus hoping the new files will overwrite old entries. There's no guarantee this will work - and there never has been. Windows is not documented internally and such things do not come with a guarantee of success.

I haven't really understood the FAT32 code though.

Overwriter said:
Is there really nothing that can be done to improve the MFT cleaning process ?
No, Windows is Windows. Use Linux if you're really THAT paranoid. Either that or someone could send me research on how to do it. Preferably through documented (read: Microsoft-sanctioned) methods. I do not like using undocumented functions (like in v5) because when service packs and new versions are released these undocumented methods break, just like how v5 now is not as usable in terms of functionality under Vista as it was with NT4.

Overwriter said:
Also if V6 is used on XP will V6 be able to employ a lower access than it does with Vista ? I guess this question is can V6 differentiate between XP and Vista and change how it cleans the MFT or will it just be the same for both ?
Same for both - read my undocumented bit above.

Sorry if this is disappointing, but pragmatism has to persist (on my part). I can't just port all the code now from v5 to v6 without caring if it may break in the future. Also with the introduction of 64 bit computers these undocumented methods becomes all the more risky.

Joel
 

Overwriter

Active Member
No, Windows is Windows
:lol:

I do not like using undocumented functions (like in v5) because when service packs and new versions are released these undocumented methods break,
OK, very wise.

Sorry if this is disappointing, but pragmatism has to persist (on my part). I can't just port all the code now from v5 to v6 without caring if it may break in the future. Also with the introduction of 64 bit computers these undocumented methods becomes all the more risky.
Thank you for taking the time to explain everything. I have a feeling that the way you are approaching writing V6 means that it is going to be very professional, well written and stable software.

Thank you.
 
Top