Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives
Re: Degausser recommendations
From: Chris Edwards <chris () ENG GLA AC UK>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:19:58 +0100
InfoSec wrote: | In most cases the HDD is damage beyond usage, especially if a 8000+ gauss | (industrial strength) is used. De-Gaussing is definitely for "destroying" - | key word destroying... Right - thanks! And Ken Connelly wrote: | Nuking a drive with a high-powered degausser may render the drive | unusable, but I don't see how that is your problem. When a failed drive is returned to vendor, they may be able to fix it. Afterall, the failure might be something simple maybe like a controller chip. If we nuke with high-powered degausser the vendor may well _not_ be able to fix it (economically), hence this is equivalent to us not returning the failed drive. Maintainance contracts where the vendor doesn't ask for the old drive back are available, but presumably at a higher cost. So by degaussing then returning we would effectively be cheating the vendor out of this extra cost.
Current thread:
- Re: Degausser recommendations, (continued)
- Re: Degausser recommendations InfoSec (May 01)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Brian Epstein (May 02)
- Re: Degausser recommendations InfoSec (May 02)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Chris Steele (May 02)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Kevin Shalla (May 02)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Jeff Kell (May 02)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Ben Woelk (May 03)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Chris Edwards (May 03)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Ken Connelly (May 03)
- Re: Degausser recommendations InfoSec (May 03)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Chris Edwards (May 03)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Ben Woelk (May 04)
- Re: Degausser recommendations Alan Amesbury (May 04)