Eraser 5.7 and all things considered

[Anonymous]

Overall, Eraser 5.7 is "probably" the best proggy available...considering it's free. That being said, I have a few gripes. Foremost, the scheduler's fucked up! Even though I deleted all scheduled tasks and disabled them from the Preferences menu, Eraser keeps running them anyway. I've even went into MSCONFIG in order to try to stop it, but it still keeps running scheduled tasks. HELP!?!?! Perhaps Heidi should keep this in mind for Eraser 5.8?

That being said, I still feel that Eraser is the best secure deletetion program out there. I've compared it to Cyberscrub, Window Washer and BC Wipe, and it beats them all. In fact, nothing (free or for $) beats Easer in securing deleting.

Try it for yourself. I've used Directory Snoop and compared the results with ALL of the leading security proggys, Eraser actually beats them all. Try it for yourself. Download Directory Snoop 5.01 (http://www.briggsoft.com/dsnoop.htm) and investigate the contents of your HD for yourself (or any other disk viewer you choose).

If only Eraser automated the cleaning of caches, URL's, MRU's, and the like (sigh).

 

[Anonymous]

redux

Eraser does what it says it does. Not bad for free. For myself, I create a custom wiping scheme. I emulate B. Sneier's algorithem: 7 passes in all:

1st pass: 0000,0000,0000
2nd pass: 1111,1111,1111
3rd pass: pseudo-random
4th pass: (same)
5th pass: (same)
6th pass: (same)
7th pass: (same)

Frankly, that should be sufficient for most needs. If I need additional security, I add additional psuedo-random passes, up to 15. For modern HD's (computers made from the year 2000 onwards), this should be sufficient.

If there is a pressing need to secure your HD beyond this, then Derik's Boot and Nuke is for you.

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, be it known that I'm not being argumentative here; I'm just asking honest questions for my own edification.

What is the point to the first two passes? Wouldn't it be better simply to replace them with two more pseudorandom passes?

Personally, I overwrite most files with a 13-pass scheme; the first 12 passes are pseudorandom, and the 13th pass is all zeros, which simply aids in subsequent compressibility of the overwritten disk space. The choice of 12 pseudorandom passes was somewhat arbitrary; I have little doubt that 3 passes would suffice instead.

 

[Anonymous]

On a different note, is there a reason to specify "1111,1111,1111" in Eraser's options dialog, rather than simply "1111" for the first byte? In other words, aren't they the same thing? If you specify "1111" once, that pattern is used throughout...

 

[Anonymous]

indeed

I suppose there's no real importance for the first 2 passes (1111's & 0000's). I throw them in there simply for shits and grins: on older HD's with a FAT system, those schemes "might" make some difference in successfully overwriting data ("might" in that I don't have any forensic equipment handy). On modern HD's running an NTFS system, PRNG passes are "probably" the best way to go about securing overwriting.

Your method sounds good, too. Again, I think we both agree that PRNG-pass wiping is the most important thing.

 

[occasion]

cialis - http://www.bestrxpills.com

 

[Sami]

Even though I deleted all scheduled tasks and disabled them from the Preferences menu, Eraser keeps running them anyway.

That's strange, but if you quit the program and then delete the "default.ers" file, I'd say there's very little chance of that happening again the next time.

 

[Sami]

Re: indeed

on older HD's with a FAT system, those schemes "might" make some difference in successfully overwriting data

When it comes to choosing overwriting patterns, the file system you use makes absolutely no difference. Also, I doubt anyone here is using hard drives from the early 1990's anymore, so there really is no reason to use anything but pseudorandom data for erasing.