Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread

/dev/tcp

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
    Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
          Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
            Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
              Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
              Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
                Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
                  Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
                    Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
                      Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
                Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
                Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
                  Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
              Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
                Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
                  Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
                    Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
                      Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
                        Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
                          Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
                            Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
                              Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
                                Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
                      Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
                        Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
                    Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
                  Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
        Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
            Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
              The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
                Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
                Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
                  Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
                    Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
                      Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
                        Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
                      Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
                        Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
                      Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
                        Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
                  Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
        Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
          Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
            ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
              Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
              Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
                Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
                Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
      Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
      Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
      Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#90389 — Re: The hammer is best

On 2026-08-23 11:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>
>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>
>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
> 
> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t
> have the opportunity to destroy it.

Exactly.

And in the typical business case, hammering of disks is not often done. 
Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing them 
first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or the 
disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.


> 
> The chances that someone would threaten my life or liberty over it are
> negligible, but if they did, they wouldn’t need to wait for a device to
> be disposed of, they’d just turn up at my door with a weapon, RIPA
> notice or other leverage.
> 
> Physical destruction is not really relevant for most of the lifetime of
> confidential data, and encryption does actually achieve something useful
> in realistic use cases.
> 
> High value data is protected by keys that no human knows.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90392 — Re: The hammer is best

On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-23 11:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>>
>>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>>
>>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
>>
>> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
>> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t
>> have the opportunity to destroy it.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And in the typical business case, hammering of disks is not often done. 

It is UNIVERSALLY done in the UK.
Insurance will be voided, contracts lost  and people will get fired if 
it is not.

The big sources of usable hardware are BIG corporates - banks, insurance 
companies, travel agencies... they dump a thousand machines a year to 
recycling companies who sign in blood that the disk will be CRUSHED.

> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing them 
> first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or the 
> disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
> 
No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with 
nothing worth stealing might...


-- 
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90410 — Re: The hammer is best

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing them 
>> first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or the 
>> disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
>> 
>No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with 
>nothing worth stealing might...

Corporations still act on the customs of the 2000 years because using
their brains costs money that doesn't land in budgets where the money
to destroy disks is already booked.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90434 — Re: The hammer is best

On 8/23/26 15:20, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing them
>>> first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or the
>>> disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
>>>
>> No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with
>> nothing worth stealing might...
> 
> Corporations still act on the customs of the 2000 years because using
> their brains costs money that doesn't land in budgets where the money
> to destroy disks is already booked.

   Ummmm ???

   Anyway, unless yer the CIA, ONE good whack with
   a ball-peen WILL ruin those HDDs. Quick and cheap.

   "Bang Bang Hillry's silver hammer cam down upon
   those phones" :-)

   SSDs ? Maybe TWO whacks. A "stun gun" applied
   to the pins will surely do it too. Sparky Sparky,
   no more chips.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90450 — Re: The hammer is best

On 23/08/2026 20:20, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing them
>>> first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or the
>>> disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
>>>
>> No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with
>> nothing worth stealing might...
> 
> Corporations still act on the customs of the 2000 years because using
> their brains costs money that doesn't land in budgets where the money
> to destroy disks is already booked.
> 
No., They have the wisdom of age.
Crushing a disk loses maybe $20. Having a disks data stolen could cots 
them $billions
There is no way to be assured other than by doing $10,000 worth of 
testing that a disks data has completely been destroyed beyond foresnic 
recovery, but if the disk is crushed there is certainty.

Likewise the audit trails to determine whether or not the disk held any 
sensitive data or not are expensive to maintain and even more to trace.


$20 is a small price to pay for certainty


> Greetings
> Marc

-- 
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all 
private property.

Karl Marx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90418 — Re: The hammer is best

On 8/23/26 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-08-23 11:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>>>
>>>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>>>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
>>>
>>> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
>>> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t
>>> have the opportunity to destroy it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> And in the typical business case, hammering of disks is not often done. 
> 
> It is UNIVERSALLY done in the UK.
> Insurance will be voided, contracts lost  and people will get fired if 
> it is not.
> 
> The big sources of usable hardware are BIG corporates - banks, insurance 
> companies, travel agencies... they dump a thousand machines a year to 
> recycling companies who sign in blood that the disk will be CRUSHED.
> 
>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing 
>> them first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or 
>> the disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
>>
> No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with 
> nothing worth stealing might...

20 years ago where I worked we used the hammer and drill approach, but 
that was NEVER environmentally responsible.  NOTE that Western Digital 
runs a drive recycling program for EOL hard drives.  They may not pay 
you money, but they do offer credits on new hard drives.

Considering that China is constricting the availability of rare earth 
magnets now I think it behooves us to recycle these drives whenever 
possible.

WD claims to wipe the drives on arrival, but I still run dd -if 
/dev/urandom of=/dev/xxx multiple times on anything I send them...

Aside from that, I keep all my hard drives encrypted at rest.

-- 
"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.  Set a man on fire, and 
he's  warm for the rest of his life."

- Terry Pratchett, Discworld

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90419 — Re: The hammer is best

On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 19:42:12 -0400, Joed Oakes wrote:

> 20 years ago where I worked we used the hammer and drill approach,
> but that was NEVER environmentally responsible. NOTE that Western
> Digital runs a drive recycling program for EOL hard drives. They may
> not pay you money, but they do offer credits on new hard drives.

There are third-party companies who undertake legally-binding
contracts to erase all data on used drives before reselling them.

A client of mine gets lots of drives from such a source. Here
<https://shop.core.net.nz/products/lenovo-2ru-x3650-m5-rack-server> is
an example of the sort of hardware he puts them in. That takes one or
two expansion cabinets as well, for an extra 24 drives in each.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90436 — Re: The hammer is best

On 8/23/26 19:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 19:42:12 -0400, Joed Oakes wrote:
> 
>> 20 years ago where I worked we used the hammer and drill approach,
>> but that was NEVER environmentally responsible. NOTE that Western
>> Digital runs a drive recycling program for EOL hard drives. They may
>> not pay you money, but they do offer credits on new hard drives.
> 
> There are third-party companies who undertake legally-binding
> contracts to erase all data on used drives before reselling them.

   Umm .. CAUTION.

   That contract clause doesn't mean THEY can't
   pirate the drives BEFORE they re-sell 'em !

> A client of mine gets lots of drives from such a source. Here
> <https://shop.core.net.nz/products/lenovo-2ru-x3650-m5-rack-server> is
> an example of the sort of hardware he puts them in. That takes one or
> two expansion cabinets as well, for an extra 24 drives in each.

   Screw 'responsible' - SMASH old drives.

   DID salvage a lot of neo magnets from old
   drives however. HATE to waste those.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90421 — Re: The hammer is best

On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 19:42:12 -0400, Joed Oakes wrote:

> WD claims to wipe the drives on arrival, but I still run dd -if
> /dev/urandom of=/dev/xxx multiple times on anything I send them...

Madame Clinton recommends BitBleach.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90445 — Re: The hammer is best

On 2026-08-24 01:42, Joed Oakes wrote:
> On 8/23/26 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-08-23 11:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>>>>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
>>>>
>>>> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
>>>> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I 
>>>> won’t
>>>> have the opportunity to destroy it.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> And in the typical business case, hammering of disks is not often done. 
>>
>> It is UNIVERSALLY done in the UK.
>> Insurance will be voided, contracts lost  and people will get fired if 
>> it is not.
>>
>> The big sources of usable hardware are BIG corporates - banks, 
>> insurance companies, travel agencies... they dump a thousand machines 
>> a year to recycling companies who sign in blood that the disk will be 
>> CRUSHED.
>>
>>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing 
>>> them first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, 
>>> or the disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such 
>>> accidents.
>>>
>> No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies 
>> with nothing worth stealing might...
> 
> 20 years ago where I worked we used the hammer and drill approach, but 
> that was NEVER environmentally responsible.  NOTE that Western Digital 
> runs a drive recycling program for EOL hard drives.  They may not pay 
> you money, but they do offer credits on new hard drives.
> 
> Considering that China is constricting the availability of rare earth 
> magnets now I think it behooves us to recycle these drives whenever 
> possible.
> 
> WD claims to wipe the drives on arrival, but I still run dd -if /dev/ 
> urandom of=/dev/xxx multiple times on anything I send them...

man urandom

        When  read,  the  /dev/urandom device returns random bytes using 
a pseudorandom number generator seeded from the entropy pool.  Reads 
from this device do not block (i.e., the CPU is not yielded), but can 
incur an appreciable delay when requesting large amounts of data.

My utility in pascal is faster than this, it does not wait.

> 
> Aside from that, I keep all my hard drives encrypted at rest.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90427 — Re: The hammer is best

On 8/23/26 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/08/2026 12:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-08-23 11:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>>>
>>>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>>>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
>>>
>>> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
>>> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t
>>> have the opportunity to destroy it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> And in the typical business case, hammering of disks is not often done. 
> 
> It is UNIVERSALLY done in the UK.
> Insurance will be voided, contracts lost  and people will get fired if 
> it is not.


   Ok, still SOME intelligence in the UK !  :-)


> The big sources of usable hardware are BIG corporates - banks, insurance 
> companies, travel agencies... they dump a thousand machines a year to 
> recycling companies who sign in blood that the disk will be CRUSHED.
> 
>> Hard disks are simply repurposed, recycled, sold... usually zeroing 
>> them first. Encryption protects the case when zeroing is forgotten, or 
>> the disk breaks before that. Encryption protects against such accidents.
>>
> No, they are not. Not by corporations. Some Mickey Mouse companies with 
> nothing worth stealing might...

   Physical destruction IS best. This can actually be
   as simple as a hammer or cold chisel. However the
   drill-press approach will also getcha there, esp if
   the drill also ruins the physical mechanism for
   read/write. Almost all drives these days have it in
   the SAME location.

   Good sharp half-inch drillbit ... TWO seconds to ruin
   the drive.

   Oh, while for a little while they made HDDs with glass
   platters, almost all are aluminum. Even a quarter-inch
   hole, followed by a small drop of toilet-cleaning
   hydrochloric acid (a pinch of salt added is even better)
   will absolutely ROT aluminum platters Real Quick. Used
   to keep a little vial of the brew.

   Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna
   disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on
   a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data.
   Defensive measures should be in proportion to the RISK.
   CIA probably MELTS the things. Joe's Garage does not
   need to - one good whack with a ball-peen will do it
   very nicely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90438 — Re: The hammer is best

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:53:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Good sharp half-inch drillbit ... TWO seconds to ruin the drive.

.45 ACP, modified Mozambique Drill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90451 — Re: The hammer is best

On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote:
> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna
>    disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on
>    a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data.

Large corporate competitors might well undertake such.

-- 
The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath 
takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives 
everything he can and takes only what he needs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90423 — Re: The hammer is best

On 8/23/26 05:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>    are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme
>>>>    gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton
>>>>    way - HAMMER :-)
>>>
>>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions.
>>
>> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a
>> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key.
> 
> My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from
> here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t
> have the opportunity to destroy it.
> 
> The chances that someone would threaten my life or liberty over it are
> negligible, but if they did, they wouldn’t need to wait for a device to
> be disposed of, they’d just turn up at my door with a weapon, RIPA
> notice or other leverage.
> 
> Physical destruction is not really relevant for most of the lifetime of
> confidential data, and encryption does actually achieve something useful
> in realistic use cases.
> 
> High value data is protected by keys that no human knows.


   However when you open the lock, anyone 'watching' can
   then get at the data.

   Physically stealing drives, very rare, tends to be noticed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90284

c186282 wrote:

> On 8/20/26 09:50, Rich wrote:
>> 
>> These are handled by Bash, they don't exist as part of the OS (system).
> 
>    Correct. I've used the /dev/tcp trick before to
>    check ports. Seems to only work with Bash. Others
>    might add it eventually, but not too likely.

According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was
added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93.

It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have.

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90303

On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 13:41:47 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:

> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was
> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by"
> ksh93.
>
> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have.

Whatever happened to the idea of “do one thing, and do it well” ... ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90313

On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote:
> c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 8/20/26 09:50, Rich wrote:
>>>
>>> These are handled by Bash, they don't exist as part of the OS (system).
>>
>>     Correct. I've used the /dev/tcp trick before to
>>     check ports. Seems to only work with Bash. Others
>>     might add it eventually, but not too likely.
> 
> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was
> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93.
> 
> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have.

   You run ksh93 ???

   Not too many Kornies left these days :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90452 — ksh (was: /dev/tcp)

c186282 wrote:

> On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote:
>> 
>> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was
>> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93.
>> 
>> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have.
> 
>    You run ksh93 ???
> 
>    Not too many Kornies left these days :-)

Ksh has been my preferred interactive shell since I first started using
SVR4-based systems in the late 80's.

Prior to that I used something called wash, short for Warwick Shell
(a version of Bourne Shell with added interactive history, written by
some folks - students I assume - at Warwick University in the UK).
Wash's history mechanism used control characters for all the editing,
which as a vi user I hated.  Once I discovered ksh's vi mode I never
looked back.

I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things
in its vi mode don't quite work the same way.

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90454 — Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp))

In article <0lrtlm-c0k.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>,
Geoff Clare  <netnews@gclare.org.uk> wrote:
...
>I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things
>in its vi mode don't quite work the same way.

I've never used ksh (other than to quickly test a quick thing here and
there), so I don't know how its vi mode works.  That said:

    1) The idea of compressing "vi" down to a single line editor is
    problematic in any case.  It will always be an approximation of the
    real thing.  In fact, if I want to do anything non-trivial in command
    line editing (in bash), I use "fc" (which invokes real vi on a temp
    file) rather than doing "inline" editing.

    2) There are a few things that bug me about bash's vi mode, but I've
    mostly accepted/gotten used to them over the years. Here are just a
    couple (there are others, but these are what comes immediately to mind):
	a) That you are in insert mode by default.  This is just not how vi
	is supposed to be used.  tcsh gets this one right.
	b) That the wildcard is "*" (as if you were in glob mode) rather
	than ".*" as it would be in real vi.

Does ksh improve on either of these points?

-- 
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90470 — Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:

> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things
> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way.

By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web