5 ms·

A lot of work, but with success as reward! Makes you wonder how easy or difficult it will be in 30 years to 'recover' data from today.

dehrmann 1y ago
> Makes you wonder how easy or difficult it will be in 30 years to 'recover' data from today. The challenges will be different. Flash loses its charge in 30 years, most disks are encrypted, and on-site physical backups are mostly a thing of the past. The source might survive in a cloud repo, but it'll either be tied up for legal reasons or deleted when the customer stops paying the bill. But storage is cheap and getting cheaper!
- ljlolel 1y ago
  Easy. The “deleted” even overwritten data can leave ghosts even multiple layers deep (think of a clay tablet or painting with multiple inscriptions) Encryption for 30 years ago? Trivially breakable with quantum
  - rjst01 1y ago
    > Encryption for 30 years ago? Trivially breakable with quantum I wouldn't be so sure - quantum computers aren't nearly as effective for symmetric algorithms as they are for pre-quantum asymmetric algorithms.
    - b112 1y ago
      Regardless of the parent's statement, just normal compute in 30 years, plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future. I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today. The same will likely be true by 2050, quantum computing or not. I wonder how many people realise this? Even if one disagrees with my certainty, I think people should still plan for the concept that there's a strong probability it will be so. Encryption is really not about preventing data exposure, but about delaying it. Any other view regarding encryption means disappointment.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >normal compute You are underestimating the exponential possibilities of keys. >plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future. You can't just assume that there is always going to be new vulnerabilities that cause it to be broken. It ignores that people have improved at designing secure cryptography over time.
        b112 1y ago
        From a security perspective, I argue ypu must assume precisely that. An example being, destroying sensitive backup media upon its retirement, regardless of data encryption.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        > I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today. AES is only 3 years shy of 30. If you used MD5 as a keystream generator I believe that would still be secure and that's 33 years old. 3DES is still pretty secure, isn't it? That's 44 years old. As for today's data, there's always risk into the future but we've gotten better as making secure algorithms over time and avoiding quantum attacks seems to mostly be a matter of doubling key length. I'd worry more about plain old leaks.
        b112 1y ago
        I'll concede your point re: current status of some encryption. However there are loads that were comprised. How do you tell which will fall, and which will succeed in 30 years? All this said, I just think proper mental framing helps. Considering the value of encrypted data, in 30 years, if it is broken. In many cases... who cares. In others, it could be unpleasant.
        bluGill 1y ago
        30 years ago we had a good idea. Anything considered good 30 years ago - 3DES- still is. Anything not considered good has turned out not to be. We don't know what the future will hold so it is always possible someone will find a major flaw in AES, but as I write this nobody has indicated they are even close.
    - NewsaHackO 1y ago
      I would go as far as saying anyone who mentions quantum computers breaking block encryption doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
  - jetbalsa 1y ago
    Has this been proven for flash storage? Once a flash charge is depleted its gone forever, its not like magnetic storage of old.
  - mjg59 1y ago
    Shor's algorithm is primarily relevant to asymmetric cryptography, and disk encryption is pretty much universally symmetric. Quantum computers do nothing to break modern disk encryption.
  - privatelypublic 1y ago
    Not this tripe again. The reality is, as soon as humanity figures out how to distinguish between two values (magnetic flux, voltage, pits/lands, etc) we use it to store more data, or move it faster. The end.
    - ljlolel 1y ago
      Sure but we are talking 30 year old disks so they don’t have that
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    Don't forget that flash drives are not accessed linearly. Your data might look linear to you, but without that sector addressing table, you're looking at noise. On top of that static wear leveling can move all your data around when your disk is idle, and TRIM will effectively zero your unused areas when you are not looking. So, it's a very different landscape.
- rietta 1y ago
  Data not continuously copied is lost. Ironically the most future proof media is becoming increasingly rare. Those gold layer dvds may last well into the future but the readers will not be available.
  - rietta 1y ago
    A major plot of my fictional book is going to be the resurrection of data from a DVD recovered from an archaeological site in from the ancient North American period (from the pov of the characters). It is a significant challenge fraught with perils, including the professor responsible being threatened with failure after failure in the field, budget cuts, and political barriers. But success will be the first glimpse after thousands of years into the unknown dark age that so little is known about.
- nullc 1y ago
  Flash seems to lose its charge a lot faster than that, -- I found ordinary SSDs left in a closet for two years to be full of errors while matched sibling drives left in running systems were fine.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Hard, but it depends on backup / duplication strategies; this is why e.g. the internet archive is so important, and I hope there are multiple parties doing the same thing for redundancy.
rietta 1y ago
Hard. I am slowly writing a book set in the future where we are a “digital dark age” where little to nothing is known about our time tentatively called Professor Bitrot.

dehrmann 1y ago

> Makes you wonder how easy or difficult it will be in 30 years to 'recover' data from today. The challenges will be different. Flash loses its charge in 30 years, most disks are encrypted, and on-site physical backups are mostly a thing of the past. The source might survive in a cloud repo, but it'll either be tied up for legal reasons or deleted when the customer stops paying the bill. But storage is cheap and getting cheaper!

ljlolel 1y ago
Easy. The “deleted” even overwritten data can leave ghosts even multiple layers deep (think of a clay tablet or painting with multiple inscriptions) Encryption for 30 years ago? Trivially breakable with quantum
- rjst01 1y ago
  > Encryption for 30 years ago? Trivially breakable with quantum I wouldn't be so sure - quantum computers aren't nearly as effective for symmetric algorithms as they are for pre-quantum asymmetric algorithms.
  - b112 1y ago
    Regardless of the parent's statement, just normal compute in 30 years, plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future. I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today. The same will likely be true by 2050, quantum computing or not. I wonder how many people realise this? Even if one disagrees with my certainty, I think people should still plan for the concept that there's a strong probability it will be so. Encryption is really not about preventing data exposure, but about delaying it. Any other view regarding encryption means disappointment.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >normal compute You are underestimating the exponential possibilities of keys. >plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future. You can't just assume that there is always going to be new vulnerabilities that cause it to be broken. It ignores that people have improved at designing secure cryptography over time.
      - b112 1y ago
        From a security perspective, I argue ypu must assume precisely that. An example being, destroying sensitive backup media upon its retirement, regardless of data encryption.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today. AES is only 3 years shy of 30. If you used MD5 as a keystream generator I believe that would still be secure and that's 33 years old. 3DES is still pretty secure, isn't it? That's 44 years old. As for today's data, there's always risk into the future but we've gotten better as making secure algorithms over time and avoiding quantum attacks seems to mostly be a matter of doubling key length. I'd worry more about plain old leaks.
      - b112 1y ago
        I'll concede your point re: current status of some encryption. However there are loads that were comprised. How do you tell which will fall, and which will succeed in 30 years? All this said, I just think proper mental framing helps. Considering the value of encrypted data, in 30 years, if it is broken. In many cases... who cares. In others, it could be unpleasant.
        bluGill 1y ago
        30 years ago we had a good idea. Anything considered good 30 years ago - 3DES- still is. Anything not considered good has turned out not to be. We don't know what the future will hold so it is always possible someone will find a major flaw in AES, but as I write this nobody has indicated they are even close.
  - NewsaHackO 1y ago
    I would go as far as saying anyone who mentions quantum computers breaking block encryption doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
- jetbalsa 1y ago
  Has this been proven for flash storage? Once a flash charge is depleted its gone forever, its not like magnetic storage of old.
- mjg59 1y ago
  Shor's algorithm is primarily relevant to asymmetric cryptography, and disk encryption is pretty much universally symmetric. Quantum computers do nothing to break modern disk encryption.
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  Not this tripe again. The reality is, as soon as humanity figures out how to distinguish between two values (magnetic flux, voltage, pits/lands, etc) we use it to store more data, or move it faster. The end.
  - ljlolel 1y ago
    Sure but we are talking 30 year old disks so they don’t have that
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Don't forget that flash drives are not accessed linearly. Your data might look linear to you, but without that sector addressing table, you're looking at noise. On top of that static wear leveling can move all your data around when your disk is idle, and TRIM will effectively zero your unused areas when you are not looking. So, it's a very different landscape.
rietta 1y ago
Data not continuously copied is lost. Ironically the most future proof media is becoming increasingly rare. Those gold layer dvds may last well into the future but the readers will not be available.
- rietta 1y ago
  A major plot of my fictional book is going to be the resurrection of data from a DVD recovered from an archaeological site in from the ancient North American period (from the pov of the characters). It is a significant challenge fraught with perils, including the professor responsible being threatened with failure after failure in the field, budget cuts, and political barriers. But success will be the first glimpse after thousands of years into the unknown dark age that so little is known about.
nullc 1y ago
Flash seems to lose its charge a lot faster than that, -- I found ordinary SSDs left in a closet for two years to be full of errors while matched sibling drives left in running systems were fine.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

Hard, but it depends on backup / duplication strategies; this is why e.g. the internet archive is so important, and I hope there are multiple parties doing the same thing for redundancy.

rietta 1y ago

Hard. I am slowly writing a book set in the future where we are a “digital dark age” where little to nothing is known about our time tentatively called Professor Bitrot.