5 ms·
Does this actually prevent forensics from finding any data?
by yellow_lead 4y ago
Does this actually prevent forensics from finding any data?
- lofaszvanitt 4y agoNot at all.
- system2 4y agoWhy not? If the data is zeroed, there wouldn't be anything to find by forensics.
- Arrath 4y agoFrom my reading it doesn't appear to zero the data, just overdrive the controller and hope to burn it out, which may or may not have downstream effects on the memory chip itself.
- xani_ 4y agoThat if it can produce enough current for it in the first place and I kinda doubt that. I've seen chips survive short term reverse polarity even, this might just be fine
- Kirby64 4y agoYou're not zeroing the data, you're just burning up the flash memory in some way... which is not necessarily going to reliably damage the actual contents of the data, most likely it'll probably just damage some built-in voltage regulator or IO. For a truly determined adversary, you could pull the flash chip and read the contents directly. It's much more difficult, but theoretically possible if the information is valuable enough.
- wongarsu 4y agoDepends on your adversary. To the normal user who plugs it in it will appear dead, and the average data-restore lab might desolder the flash chip, figure out that it's dead and give up. But I'd expect this to just burn out the flash chip's control logic, the stored data itself should stay intact. Someone determined enough could decap the chip and surgically wire in replacements for any burned-out parts. I think it's a good balance if you have a believable excuse why you're carrying a dead USB stick, and aren't on the list of public enemies. It's a lot simpler than trying to melt the flash with thermite or something like that. But I wonder if there would be a reasonable way to run an erase cycle first.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoNo. If you do this as part of a legal search and they catch on you're now in a lot more trouble and you've caught their attention.
- dheera 4y agoIt would probably be better if the device self-destructed automatically if some kind of dead-man switch signal isn't given. Like having to press a button at least once a day or maintain reception at least once a day with an implant inside the owner's body; else it self-destructs. That way you aren't doing anything, it's their act of arresting you or sneezing your device that causes the destruction. If they want to keep the evidence they have no choice but to keep the device in your possession.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI wouldn't risk it. Don't break the law in the first place. Comply with legal requests. If you're a journalist be careful!
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
- wizofaus 4y ago> It would probably be better if the device self-destructed automatically if some kind of dead-man switch signal isn't given How is that not what's being described here? The dead-man switch signal is to moisten your fingers before plugging it in.
- mrguyorama 4y agoUnless there is ample precedent or case law showing that this kind of rules-lawyering is acceptable, always assume judges would frown upon obvious attempts to subvert the intent of law by using the wording of the law. Unless of course you are a big company, in which case that seems to be the expectation. So the real advice here is just to be a very important person.