Can I update to a 1.5 TB internal HDD on a 6 year old Dell xps9000

[Digerati]

I'm the only person accessing my data so I don't really need a NAS nor do I have room for one.

A NAS can be as small as an external USB drive. It just connects to your network via Ethernet or wireless instead of to your computer via USB.

Win 7's firewall is excellent for that but its user interface is almost nonexistent and doesn't allow easy "fine tuning", especially against uploads nor does it tell you what is going on. That's why I prefer Zone Alarm.

I agree W7's FW is excellent and does not allow for easy fine tuning. But W7 is over 7 years old. W10's WF does allow for easy configuration of both inbound and outbound rules, connection security rules and monitoring. But frankly, it is pretty smart as it is without the need for user tinkering.

I was a long time user of ZA and believe me, I used to be as hands on as you, if not worse. But none of my clients were. I never migrated to Vista because I thought it was junk. So I stuck with XP until W7 came out Oct 2009. Then I decided to setup a couple of my systems with W7 in full default mode (with MBAM) like most of my clients so we could be on the same page. And funny thing, it worked just fine. So when I migrated all my systems (5 now) to Win 10, I decided to keep all the defaults there too (except I use Start 10 on this PC and my notebook). And again, everything works just fine and I've had no malicious code on any of my systems.

So I have found I don't need to be so hands on to ensure my systems run optimally while staying secure. As I noted before, W7, W8 and W10 are not XP, and don't need to be tinkered with like XP did. But Windows is flexible enough to let users tweak and customize and that's good.

 

[Digerati]

Actually, cookies do have something to do with it, kindasorta. The website does need the IP addy to find you but uses the cookie to store the data on you. When they harvest the data for a compilation, report, whatever, they retrieve some or all the data from the cookie.

We are talking different things here. Cookies are dropped on our computers and they really have nothing to do the websites "logging" your connection to the website, or your ISP tracking you which is what I was commenting on. If you clear your cookies, the website is still going to know you were there, just like your ISP is going to know you went there too.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Actually, cookies do have something to do with it, kindasorta. The website does need the IP addy to find you but uses the cookie to store the data on you. When they harvest the data for a compilation, report, whatever, they retrieve some or all the data from the cookie.

We are talking different things here. Cookies are dropped on our computers and they really have nothing to do the websites "logging" your connection to the website, or your ISP tracking you which is what I was commenting on. If you clear your cookies, the website is still going to know you were there, just like your ISP is going to know you went there too.

True but they won't glean much from you because there won't be any data on a cookie to collect it from if there is no cookie. One purpose of cookies is to contain login info, financial info, addresses, etc. and are needed to automatically log into a website, conduct financial transactions, etc. Others can log the number of times you have visited a site, etc. They aren't always the big bad monsters people make them out to be (though they can be, such as some of the tracking cookies) but, again, it's my darned computer and I want a say on what is put on it (or taken off).

 

[Digerati]

True but they won't glean much from you because there won't be any data on a cookie to collect it from if there is no cookie.

That depends on who "they" are. Again, I was commenting on your ISP being a much greater threat than Microsoft.

Your IP address is tied to the MAC address of your gateway device (typically a cable/DSL modem). And that gateway device/IP/MAC is tied to your ISP account. So it does not matter one iota if you save or purge your cookies. Your ISP already knows your full name, billing address/physical location, SSN/IN and other personally identifiable information. PLUS, your ISP knows every single site you visit, when you visited it, and how long you were there.

And any site you visit knows your IP address, when you were there, what you did while there, and how long you were there, without ever looking at a single cookie.

Cookies really don't provide much to anyone looking for your personal information if they have half a clue for what they are doing. So again, there is HUGE difference between privacy and security.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

True but they won't glean much from you because there won't be any data on a cookie to collect it from if there is no cookie.

That depends on who "they" are. Again, I was commenting on your ISP being a much greater threat than Microsoft.

Your IP address is tied to the MAC address of your gateway device (typically a cable/DSL modem). And that gateway device/IP/MAC is tied to your ISP account. So it does not matter one iota if you save or purge your cookies. Your ISP already knows your full name, billing address/physical location, SSN/IN and other personally identifiable information. PLUS, your ISP knows every single site you visit, when you visited it, and how long you were there.

And any site you visit knows your IP address, when you were there, what you did while there, and how long you were there, without ever looking at a single cookie.

Cookies really don't provide much to anyone looking for your personal information if they have half a clue for what they are doing. So again, there is HUGE difference between privacy and security.

"They" are the ones who drop the cookies on your computer. Cookies can be used to track you (yes, so do the ISPs but why let everyone and their dog also do it when it's so easy to prevent much of it). Some are used for advertising purposes (those are the ones I especially do not want on my computer). Some can carry malware piggybacked on them (not all that common but it does happen). I've already said cookies are not a huge problem but why not just block those that are not needed when all it takes is a simple keystroke when a website tries to drop an unneeded one onto my computer? Granted, it's a thin layer of protection but a little here and a little there can add up.

Again, it's my computer and I will determine what goes on it whenever possible. When a website, program company, whatever, offers to pay for my computers, internet connection, etc., then I will let them have free reign over my computers. Otherwise, they get to deal with a cranky, anal, old Irish bi...broad!

 

[Digerati]

"They" are the ones who drop the cookies on your computer. Cookies can be used to track you (yes, so do the ISPs but why let everyone and their dog also do it when it's so easy to prevent much of it).

You really are arguing a point I am NOT and have not been disputing.

I am going to summarize my position then step out of here because this thread no longer even remotely resembles anything about the OP's topic.

You said you were "more concerned about monitoring and regulating outbound transmissions". Cookies don't phone home. And you can block programs that do easily with WF, just as you can with ZA. I don't care which firewall anyone uses. Firewall technologies are not new or complex, proprietary or unique to any given program. They all work the same way by blocking access to ports. The point is, use a firewall.

Another poster said ISP's don't keep track of our web-surfing. That is not true. They log all traffic going through their networks. That is NOT done by cookies.

Lady Fitzgerald correctly points out if you delete a cookie, there will be no login data to collect from it. But again, that does not matter to your ISP (because they are already logging your traffic) or the next site you visit. Both will see your IP whether you log in or not. And the next time you log into any site, you will just have to enter your login credentials in again anyway - and then they will see and likely track what you are doing while connected, and maybe beyond.

That poster also said it is website's cookies that keep track an anyone who enter the website. They can, but they don't need cookies on your computer to track you while you are on their site. The website tracks you when you connect to them because they can see your IP and then log your activity on their systems. They don't need cookies on your system for that.

There are indeed "tracking cookies" that some sites dump on our systems. Most are benign. Some are used to track your activities and send a log of those activities to third parties (Newegg, Amazon, Jet, etc.). Most of those are just nosey. Some may be malicious so cleaning out cookies periodically is a good idea.

Layback Bear says he deletes cookies several times a day. That is probably overly cautious, but certainly not harmful. If you have multiple users of your computers (especially invincible, "it can't happen to me" teens), then frequent cleaning would be a prudent.

Lady Fitzgerald says she doesn't delete cookies all that often, she just makes the site ask permission, then typically denies it. That's probably fine if you are very disciplined, "security aware", and the only user of the computer.

I am somewhere in the middle. I clean out the "clutter" on my computers, including cookies, every couple days with CCleaner. Only I have told CCleaner to keep the cookies for those sites I regularly visit, like SevenForums. In this way, I keep my systems clean of ALL unwanted cookies, but keep SevenForum cookies so I don't have to keep entering my username and password every time. This is one of CCleaner's greatest features.

Most search providers will track EVERYTHING you do if you have their toolbar installed in your browser. If no toolbar, they will still track EVERYTHING you do after doing a search. They also use cookies. This is how Newegg, Amazon, Jet, and others can toss up an ad for the items you were searching for with a search engine next time you visit their sites. If you don't want your search provider tracking you, do what I do and change your default search engine to DuckDuckGo. If you don't search for illegal, nefarious or risqué content and want to earn money for your searches, use Bing to earn Microsoft Rewards.

My apologies to provlima for my part in running this thread so far OT.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Answers in bold again (I didn't get my nap out and need to go back to bed)

"They" are the ones who drop the cookies on your computer. Cookies can be used to track you (yes, so do the ISPs but why let everyone and their dog also do it when it's so easy to prevent much of it).

You really are arguing a point I am NOT and have not been disputing.

I am going to summarize my position then step out of here because this thread no longer even remotely resembles anything about the OP's topic.

You said you were "more concerned about monitoring and regulating outbound transmissions". Cookies don't phone home.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." I never said (or meant to say) that the cookies themselves phone home. The entity (polite word) that placed the cookie has to "phone" the cookie to extract data from it. The unwanted outbound communications would be from programs that phone home for various reasons, some harmless and some not so much, and from malware (monitoring and regulating outbound traffic is just another thin layer of security).

And you can block programs that do easily with WF, just as you can with ZA. I don't care which firewall anyone uses. Firewall technologies are not new or complex, proprietary or unique to any given program. They all work the same way by blocking access to ports. The point is, use a firewall.

Agreed. I just find ZA to be so much easier to use.

Another poster said ISP's don't keep track of our web-surfing. That is not true. They log all traffic going through their networks. That is NOT done by cookies.

I've never disputed that.

Lady Fitzgerald correctly points out if you delete a cookie, there will be no login data to collect from it. But again, that does not matter to your ISP (because they are already logging your traffic) or the next site you visit. Both will see your IP whether you log in or not. And the next time you log into any site, you will just have to enter your login credentials in again anyway - and then they will see and likely track what you are doing while connected, and maybe beyond.

That poster also said it is website's cookies that keep track an anyone who enter the website. They can, but they don't need cookies on your computer to track you while you are on their site. The website tracks you when you connect to them because they can see your IP and then log your activity on their systems. They don't need cookies on your system for that.

There are indeed "tracking cookies" that some sites dump on our systems. Most are benign. Some are used to track your activities and send a log of those activities to third parties (Newegg, Amazon, Jet, etc.). Most of those are just nosey. Some may be malicious so cleaning out cookies periodically is a good idea.

Exactly what I've been saying.

Layback Bear says he deletes cookies several times a day. That is probably overly cautious, but certainly not harmful. If you have multiple users of your computers (especially invincible, "it can't happen to me" teens), then frequent cleaning would be a prudent.

Lady Fitzgerald says she doesn't delete cookies all that often, she just makes the site ask permission, then typically denies it. That's probably fine if you are very disciplined, "security aware", and the only user of the computer.

I'm the only user. It's easy to be disciplined when you have a pop-up staring you in the face. If I kneejerk and respond without thinking, it will be to deny the cookie which is a failsafe for me since I can always reset my browser to accept that cookie should it turn out I do need it.

I am somewhere in the middle. I clean out the "clutter" on my computers, including cookies, every couple days with CCleaner. Only I have told CCleaner to keep the cookies for those sites I regularly visit, like SevenForums. In this way, I keep my systems clean of ALL unwanted cookies, but keep SevenForum cookies so I don't have to keep entering my username and password every time. This is one of CCleaner's greatest features.

While most people swear by CCleaner, I'm more likely to swear at it. I have found it to be a bit more intrusive than I care for and it occasionally doesn't play well with some of my programs. I only install it on my computer to wipe HDDs, such as when I get a new one (which I will no longer do since I'm going all SSD soon) and want to torture test it to see if it will fail or not during the vendor's return window (I would then get a new replacement rather than the refurb the manufacturer would send). Once done, I uninstall it. I find Spybot S&D (yes, it's not as good as it used to be but it's still pretty good) and Glary Utilities work just fine for "decluttering".

Most search providers will track EVERYTHING you do if you have their toolbar installed in your browser. If no toolbar, they will still track EVERYTHING you do after doing a search. They also use cookies. This is how Newegg, Amazon, Jet, and others can toss up an ad for the items you were searching for with a search engine next time you visit their sites. If you don't want your search provider tracking you, do what I do and change your default search engine to DuckDuckGo. If you don't search for illegal, nefarious or risqué content and want to earn money for your searches, use Bing to earn Microsoft Rewards.

Ixquick is another search engine that doesn't track your searches. I don't trust or even like Bing and couldn't care less about MS Rewards. I also do not allow toolbars in my browser.

My apologies to provlima for my part in running this thread so far OT.

 

[Digerati]

While most people swear by CCleaner, I'm more likely to swear at it. I have found it to be a bit more intrusive than I care for and it occasionally doesn't play well with some of my programs.

I and many of my friends, colleagues and clients have been using CCleaner on all literally 100s of systems for over 10 years and I have never seen or heard of it ever being described as intrusive. And only in recent versions has there been a real-time component used for monitoring (which can easily be disabled) so I don't see how it could have been intrusive or "play" with any program, well or otherwise.

The only complaint (if the right word) I have heard is that it is "not" aggressive enough when cleaning the Registry. But IMO, that's what puts it head and shoulders above all other cleaners - including Glary's which I have used too.

The only other clutter cleaner I ever recommend to anyone is Windows own Disk Cleanup. But of course, that will delete all your cookies, including those you might want to keep.

So not sure what happened in your case, but I would not hesitate to recommend you try it again.

BTW, there is no harm, in fact it wise to "wipe" a SSD before getting rid of it. But there is no need to use a setting that uses more than one pass. One pass will truly delete your data (instead of just marking the locations as available), but not put unnecessary writes to the drive. CCleaner has a nice "Drive Wiper" feature that lets you select a simple 1 pass overwrite option.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

While most people swear by CCleaner, I'm more likely to swear at it. I have found it to be a bit more intrusive than I care for and it occasionally doesn't play well with some of my programs.

I and many of my friends, colleagues and clients have been using CCleaner on all literally 100s of systems for over 10 years and I have never seen or heard of it ever being described as intrusive. And only in recent versions has there been a real-time component used for monitoring (which can easily be disabled) so I don't see how it could have been intrusive or "play" with any program, well or otherwise.

The only complaint (if the right word) I have heard is that it is "not" aggressive enough when cleaning the Registry. But IMO, that's what puts it head and shoulders above all other cleaners - including Glary's which I have used too.

The only other clutter cleaner I ever recommend to anyone is Windows own Disk Cleanup. But of course, that will delete all your cookies, including those you might want to keep.

So not sure what happened in your case, but I would not hesitate to recommend you try it again.

BTW, there is no harm, in fact it wise to "wipe" a SSD before getting rid of it. But there is no need to use a setting that uses more than one pass. One pass will truly delete your data (instead of just marking the locations as available), but not put unnecessary writes to the drive. CCleaner has a nice "Drive Wiper" feature that lets you select a simple 1 pass overwrite option.

If tossing an SSD, wiping it with a single pass would be fine (so far all my SSDS I've put into service so far are still in service) but, if selling it or giving it to someone, secure erasing it would probably be better. For modern HDDs (SATA drives), you are correct; a single pass is quite sufficient for "deleting" data before parting with the drive. CCleaner's drive wiper is excellent for that and is what I use. The only time I use the multiple wipe options is when I'm torture testing a new HDD.

I know I can turn off the monitoring component in CCleaner but I have seen it turn itself back on. I have only a few programs it interferes with (or vice versus), maybe two or three—I don't remember which ones now. Rather than try to remember which combinations to avoid, I just eliminate one of the offenders.

 

[Digerati]

If tossing an SSD, wiping it with a single pass would be fine (so far all my SSDS I've put into service so far are still in service) but, if selling it or giving it to someone, secure erasing it would probably be better.

Why? With SSDs there is no "residual" magnetism (or any magnetic particles for that matter) representing any data that a bad guy can forensically recover. When it comes to SSDs, a single pass wipe does the same thing as a secure erase. If you "flip" a gate to now represent a "1", there's no way a badguy (or even Abby from NCIS) can tell there used to be a "0" there before.

On hard drives, yes a secure erase is necessary if you want to ensure all residual magnetism representing your 1s and 0s are totally obliterated and irretrievable.

That said, badguys are opportunists. Unless they have specifically targeted you personally (in which case, you have bigger problems), once he sees the disk has been wiped once, he's going to move on to easier pickings from the stack of other discarded drives he has.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

If tossing an SSD, wiping it with a single pass would be fine (so far all my SSDS I've put into service so far are still in service) but, if selling it or giving it to someone, secure erasing it would probably be better.

Why? With SSDs there is no "residual" magnetism (or any magnetic particles for that matter) representing any data that a bad guy can forensically recover. When it comes to SSDs, a single pass wipe does the same thing as a secure erase. If you "flip" a gate to now represent a "1", there's no way a badguy (or even Abby from NCIS) can tell there used to be a "0" there before.

On hard drives, yes a secure erase is necessary if you want to ensure all residual magnetism representing your 1s and 0s are totally obliterated and irretrievable.

That said, badguys are opportunists. Unless they have specifically targeted you personally (in which case, you have bigger problems), once he sees the disk has been wiped once, he's going to move on to easier pickings from the stack of other discarded drives he has.

You are confusing secure erase for SSDs with multiple passes when wiping a HDD. Wiping an SSD by writing ones and/or zeros to the entire SSD, will cause a reduction in write life. Multiple passes will, naturally, be even worse. Secure erase for SSDs (and it will work only with SSDs) will, instead of writing over the entire drive, reset the SSD to where it will no longer be able to read what is on the cells (the equivalent to HDDs' sectors), even forensically, with very little effect, if any, on the remaining write life of the SSD. One usually uses the SSDs manufacturer's software to perform a secure erase although there is a way to do it using Parted Magic. Read here for more on this (there are lots of good articles on this, I just found this one first).

Wiping an HDD, on the other hand, involves writing zeroes and/or ones (some wiping protocols use both) to every sector on the drive, obliterating any data that may be there. Since data gets so densely packed onto today's HDDs, residual magnetism after a single pass is so low, it would take the forensic capabilities of an entity like the NSA to maybe recover anything from the drive. And the NSA isn't going to go to the bother and expense of trying to recover anything from a single wiped drive unless they suspect you have really been misbehaving (and if you have been that naughty, then you should use three or more passes instead of just one).

The only reason I would ever use a wiping program to wipe an SSD is if I was going to discard it since I wouldn't care if I lost some of the "finite" number of writes left on the SDDs. But, if the SSD was going to be reused, then I would secure erase it.

 

[Digerati]

Actually, I thought you were confused with your comment that secure erase would be "better". I took that as better for security, not for the life of the drive. But again, that is not the topic of this thread either so to prevent driving this further OT, I return control back to the OP.

 

[Mega7User]

.....The only reason I would ever use a wiping program to wipe an SSD is if I was going to discard it since I wouldn't care if I lost some of the "finite" number of writes left on the SDDs.

I have completely destroyed platter HDD's when finished with them since I have come to learn there is a hidden part of platter HDD's that hold 'some sort' of record in that hidden (manufacturers) section, regardless if you mil wipe or single pass wipe them. If I was to ever own a SSD, I would just destroy it if I was discarding it.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
After the latest political test of the nsa/.... free bleach bit works pretty well so far lol

 

[Digerati]

since I have come to learn there is a hidden part of platter HDD's that hold 'some sort' of record in that hidden (manufacturers) section, regardless if you mil wipe or single pass wipe them.

Quite certain that's not true. Got a link to that information?

Note there will still be some formatting and partition information on the drive just because the drive has been formatted and partitioned (even if just one partition). But that data is used by the drive's interface card so it knows where the storage locations are, and if the space is used or available. There is NO user data left on the drive after a "wipe".

The only time I will destroy a drive is when it has failed to the point you cannot access it to run a wipe on it. When I was in the military and after when I worked for a defense contractor, we used drive shredders to destroy drives that at one time, contained classified information on them. These machines ripped the drives to tiny pieces like those big tree shredders that turned mighty oaks into mulch.

When I need to destroy a drive, I drill 3 holes all the way through the drive (and platters) using 1/4" cobalt bits. Since no drive I will ever have access to again will contain incriminating or classified information, 3 holes through the drive will be enough incentive to persuade even the most determined bad guy to move on to easier pickings.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

LOL! I think you guys just like destroying things. Ever try explosives?

All seriousness (?) aside, destroying HDDs is a practical way to ensure remaining data on them is gone forever, especially if there are very many being permanently "retired" since wiping does take a certain amount of time (and time is money). The only time I ever feel a need to destroy something being retired is because I hated it so much when I was using it, such as the Epson inkjet printer and the Epson flatbed scanner I had (I took great pleasure in "killing" those worthless pieces of misbegotten junk!). Otherwise, it's too much work. I'm going to be retiring several HDDs in the not too distant future (I'm replacing them with SSDs) and I will go to the trouble of wiping each one since I will try to find new homes for them (why toss or kill perfectly good drives?). If were to destroy one, I have an 8 lb. double jack sledge hammer that will make short work of them (actually, I'll probably do that to the two dead 3.5" drives I have that I kept around for making up ladder style SATA power cables).

I'm also curious about that hidden part of platter drives that can't be wiped.

 

[Mega7User]

since I have come to learn there is a hidden part of platter HDD's that hold 'some sort' of record in that hidden (manufacturers) section, regardless if you mil wipe or single pass wipe them.

Quite certain that's not true. Got a link to that information?

Note there will still be some formatting and partition information on the drive just because the drive has been formatted and partitioned (even if just one partition). But that data is used by the drive's interface card so it knows where the storage locations are, and if the space is used or available. There is NO user data left on the drive after a "wipe".

The only time I will destroy a drive is when it has failed to the point you cannot access it to run a wipe on it. When I was in the military and after when I worked for a defense contractor, we used drive shredders to destroy drives that at one time, contained classified information on them. These machines ripped the drives to tiny pieces like those big tree shredders that turned mighty oaks into mulch.

When I need to destroy a drive, I drill 3 holes all the way through the drive (and platters) using 1/4" cobalt bits. Since no drive I will ever have access to again will contain incriminating or classified information, 3 holes through the drive will be enough incentive to persuade even the most determined bad guy to move on to easier pickings.

Absolutely, AND, the information is OVER 1 decade old. Read on ( https://www.utica.edu/academic/inst...icles/EFE36584-D13F-2962-67BEB146864A2671.pdf ). Feel free to comment. I have heard of this for years, and this stuff is very old in terms of hardware, don't you agree? Time to 'update' your experience, if you believe this information.

MS Lady Fitz..., didn't see your post until I hit send, LOVE your mindset on enjoyment of distroying older hardware, have done that myself on occasion. Being ex-military myself, have many times blown up stuff here and there (am Vietnam-era and Desert Shield/Storm experienced). Please check out the link, am always willing to help others learn since I have so much to learn.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

since I have come to learn there is a hidden part of platter HDD's that hold 'some sort' of record in that hidden (manufacturers) section, regardless if you mil wipe or single pass wipe them.

Quite certain that's not true. Got a link to that information?

Note there will still be some formatting and partition information on the drive just because the drive has been formatted and partitioned (even if just one partition). But that data is used by the drive's interface card so it knows where the storage locations are, and if the space is used or available. There is NO user data left on the drive after a "wipe".

The only time I will destroy a drive is when it has failed to the point you cannot access it to run a wipe on it. When I was in the military and after when I worked for a defense contractor, we used drive shredders to destroy drives that at one time, contained classified information on them. These machines ripped the drives to tiny pieces like those big tree shredders that turned mighty oaks into mulch.

When I need to destroy a drive, I drill 3 holes all the way through the drive (and platters) using 1/4" cobalt bits. Since no drive I will ever have access to again will contain incriminating or classified information, 3 holes through the drive will be enough incentive to persuade even the most determined bad guy to move on to easier pickings.

Absolutely, AND, the information is OVER 1 decade old. Read on ( https://www.utica.edu/academic/inst...icles/EFE36584-D13F-2962-67BEB146864A2671.pdf ). Feel free to comment. I have heard of this for years, and this stuff is very old in terms of hardware, don't you agree? Time to 'update' your experience, if you believe this information.

Thanks for the link! I almost blew this article off as a joke when I saw the acronyms PARTIES and BEER. However, after quickly reading through the whole thing, it became apparent the only way those hidden areas would be of concern to me is if I had written critical data in them, which I will have not (heck, I'm not even going to bother to try to learn how) so a single pass wipe will be sufficient for me as long as I can access the drive itself.

 

[Mega7User]

Thanks for the link! I almost blew this article off as a joke when I saw the acronyms PARTIES and BEER. However, after quickly reading through the whole thing, it became apparent the only way those hidden areas would be of concern to me is if I had written critical data in them, which I will have not (heck, I'm not even going to bother to try to learn how) so a single pass wipe will be sufficient for me as long as I can access the drive itself.

Haaaaaaaaa, funny, I am an avid partier and brew consumer, and NEVER associated the two as I read the article. Goes to show there IS a time and place, for PARTIES and BEER outside of the post-hangovers!

I am just not ready to believe that both Microsoft nor HDD manufacturers (notwithstanding malware software writers) aren't 'using' any platter space for whatever they want too. Information acquisition is BIG business, and many pay good money to acquire it by whatever means they can. Too bad I have no way of knowing when, if, and why (anyone) has access into (or on) any of my HDD's.

 

[Digerati]

Ever try explosives?

Well not for drives, but I did used to work 2015 feet underground at the San Manual, Arizona copper mine - at the time, the world's largest underground copper mine. And I used to set a of bunch dynamite (about 20lbs worth) charges twice a day (at lunch and end of shift). Quite fun - except for the "NG" or "bang heads" - (really horrific nitroglycerin induced headaches) you got every time you handled the stuff. After I was there for awhile I moved to driving an underground train (80 miles of track on that 2015ft level!) and hauled several tons of dynamite every day. Because I handled that stuff, I got hazard pay bonus so I was paid $12/hour - and that was in 1971 - BIG money for a 18 - 19 year old back then.
Mega7User - Thanks for posting that and yeah, I remember seeing that years ago. But it is important to understand it does not apply today or here. First, that was for ancient "ATA" specification drives. That is the legacy drive technology used before EIDE drives. And EIDE drives have since been superseded by today's SATA drives. While all 3 technologies use spinning platters, R/W heads and the alignment of magnetic particles to represent 1s and 0s, the similarities between antique ATA drives and today's SATA drives pretty much ends there.

Second, as noted in that white paper, those hidden areas could only be accessed and used by knowledgeable users (primarily bad guys) and only by using "specific open source tools" to hide data in those locations from forensic investigators. Normal users could not see it.

Therefore, no normal user, no drive maker, no operating system would ever stuff user data into those locations. It could not even be done by accident! So don't worry about destroying your drives to protect your personal data from prying eyes. A simple one-pass wipe is plenty - unless you really do have something "incriminating" to hide from law enforcement! Bad guys are lazy. No bad guy is going to waste his or her time if he or she has to work at it that hard.