Shredder anybody?

Post by **admin** » 31 Oct 2006 10:20

Is there any demand for shreddering out there? I don't want to bloat the app but this would be so bloody easy to add...

surrender · Post by **surrender** » 31 Oct 2006 10:34

If its easy and a non-bloat i would most welcome it. I am always for light-weighted features.

rod147 · Post by **rod147** » 31 Oct 2006 12:11

whats is "shreddering "

Post by **admin** » 31 Oct 2006 12:21

rod147 wrote:whats is "shreddering "

whoops, I meant shredding

rod147 · Post by **rod147** » 31 Oct 2006 13:50

Question stills stands, what is "shredding"?

surrender · Post by **surrender** » 31 Oct 2006 13:54

Read this

rod147 · Post by **rod147** » 31 Oct 2006 14:04

How will that differ from the existing "Nuke" option?

Post by **admin** » 31 Oct 2006 15:03

rod147 wrote:How will that differ from the existing "Nuke" option?

Quote from the wiki article: "These will repeatedly overwrite the file with other data (typically random binary data or all zeros) a large number of times, to make such physical recovery more difficult."
This is what was on my mind. Not the burning or acid method

PS: admittedly "Nuke" would be a better name for shred than for what it stands now (bypass recycle bin). But if I'd just add optional shred to nuke ("shred on nuke", optional because it takes much longer due to the repeated writing of data), then the "Nuke" label would be just fine.

lukescammell · Post by **lukescammell** » 31 Oct 2006 15:30

I'd find this feature most useful if I could shred the recycle bin

Gandolf · Post by **Gandolf** » 31 Oct 2006 16:03

rod147 wrote:How will that differ from the existing "Nuke" option?

If you want some heavier reading than the Wikipedia article try http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... e_del.html

admin wrote:Is there any demand for shreddering out there?

Never had the need for it myself, but it does appear to be a normal feature now in file managers. If it's easy to do then I'd say go ahead.

Tamil · Post by **Tamil** » 31 Oct 2006 17:09

surrender wrote:If its easy and a non-bloat i would most welcome it.

+1

Creat · Post by **Creat** » 01 Nov 2006 03:06

yea I'd apperciate it as well. Almose never need it but I'm usualy to lazy to start something that can do it, so I'd finally use it if it was in XY

Post by **admin** » 01 Nov 2006 08:21

Creat wrote:yea I'd apperciate it as well. Almose never need it but I'm usualy to lazy to start something that can do it, so I'd finally use it if it was in XY

Of course it's only meaningful if you are (a) paranoid, and (b) share your harddisk with your enemies.

But it's fascinating how much business can be generated with it. There a thousands of payware shredder apps out there and I guess there's quite some money moved. It's fascinating because the code for the job is guaranteed well below 10K of size and can be written in an hour (once you got the info needed by researching stuff like Gandolf's link above). I wonder what those shredder apps pack into their EXE files to make them look bigger, probably shredding fall-out.

lukescammell · Post by **lukescammell** » 01 Nov 2006 15:25

Most of them aren't quite so anally retentive as you are about keeping their app slick and fast. That's a compliment btw

Post by **j_c_hallgren** » 01 Nov 2006 15:41

admin wrote:There a thousands of payware shredder apps out there

And apparently hundreds of different ways to implement it!

From what I've read on it, some do a so-so job, some an ok job, some decent, etc., thus not sure to what level you'd need to implement it to be competitive in this area. The only time I'd consider using it would be if I was giving/selling my system to someone else...which is unlikely.

I'm not sure how others feel, but I'd think a double level of confirmation might be appropriate for this function, as chances for recovery are about zip, whereas even with Nuke, there is a remote chance.