>SDDs can't be securely wiped because of wear leveling. Only HDDs can be securely wiped.
Is this true?

>sdds
I meant ssds

>>105578998 (OP)
The only secure wipe is destruction.

>>105578998 (OP)
>Is this true?
No.

>>105578998 (OP)
You can issue an ATA secure erase command and it insta-nukes all data on the SSD.

If you mean "securely wiped" like running one of those programs which overwrite the entire drive then yeah, you don't know exactly what they'll touch on a modern SSD due to wear leveling and overprovisioning.

>>105578998 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llMuZQBIUqw

>>105578998 (OP)
A huge fucking blender removes that problem from the equation.

the solution is to use encryption in the first place

>>105579082
I see you are a man of culture.

Only on an extremely theoretical level. You might be unable to re-write a few bits out of a million, but that small amount of data will never be relevant and its readability will also be unreliable.

Also, assuming that HDDs can be securely wiped (using traditional computing means) is extremely naive. HDDs can get into "failure to write but not read" scenarios but since it doesn't have wear-leveling, those scenarios are far more likely to result in large, continuous sections of data being preserved that can be forensically scanned.

>Wear leveling makes SSD self-wiping consistently throughout normal use.
>Pedophiles are still worried because cp gets overwritten with more cp since they don't use their computer for anything else.

>>105578998 (OP)
stop hoarding cp

>>105578998 (OP)
of course you can wipe them, it does eat into the TBW , but its such a small amount of the total endurance it doesn't matter.

>>105578998 (OP)
>what is secure erase

>>105578998 (OP)
you got it backward retard.

>>105579107
some ssds already do this transparently, when you give it the secure erase command it just generates a new encryption key. its the recommended procedure before you sell your old gear.

>>105578998 (OP)
Not in a way that matters. Data written to the raw NAND blocks is encrypted by the controller. This isn't FDE because it's transparent to the host but does 2 good things: 1) helps wear leveling since encrypted data has the same entropy as random data and 2) to secure erase all you do is rotate the key. So if the blocks die and you can't erase them because you can't write to them, you just rotate the key and you can't read what was there. Exfiltrating the key/its rotation algo would be juicy security targets but I've yet to hear of it happening. The old boiling water/fire still work too.

>>105581432
Well yes but if you don't do that anyone can read it, encryption is a must these days regardless.

>>105581746
this has always been true regardless of the medium. op is talking specifically about wiping the data after the fact and the behaviour difference between the media types.

>glowies recommending to not encrypt your drive because the controller already does it
lol, remember kids watch out for ill advice like that

>>105581799
everyone has a different threat model, it could be as simple as someone wanting to sell their hdd without some creep running a data recovery to find their family pictures and tax returns. even if the ssd uses the nsa approved curves its good enough for 99% of the population. anyone who is getting targeted by state level actors probably shouldn't be taking opsec advice from 4chan.

>>105581545
>boiling water
100C isn't going to do shit to silicon

>>105578998 (OP)
an ssd is just gates, so no they can't have magnetic traces like spindisk mister should we be concerned

Guttman.

>>105581799
I don't encrypt my data because I'm not a pedophile.

>>105584835
Saar, is computer inspection day, Saar.
Saar, don't be a pedophile, Saar.
Saar, give us your credentials, Saar.

>>105581432
>>105581545
>>105584835

>>105578998 (OP)
You could just throw it in a dumpster the morning of garbage day. After a week the odds of it ever being found are pretty much 0.

>>105578998 (OP)
True privacy can only be achieved with your own file system and your own encryption.

>>105584872
I was literally never asked to do this.

>>105585123
>your own encryption
Just don't. It's too easy to write stuff that you can't decrypt, but which someone else could crack easily.
And no, triple base-64 encoding everything doesn't count as encryption. It counts as stupid.

>>105585725
Skill issue.

TVEH*OPKFCDXNPS*DZANIZM.HFVYPKCPEZ.FXAVSZEKQYSBKH*OT*KCNP*IAISVZKZSYHTGSKMDKNYLCNRPV.AVZOKQEY.HTFHTDBKKAYZBAXSACCIQCHVBKN*PEQFDZAQSMZCIKHHC.B*KNGCBEXPSBFSAXLPCKOHVGKNGCXPPNRQC

>>105578998 (OP)
Just throw them in the ocean, retard.

>>105578998 (OP)
wait until anon finds out that information-mass-energy can't be destroyed

dumb frognigger cant into google search