mosiacmango @ mosiacmango @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,597

Joined

2 yr. ago

DoD dropped it 7 and 3 pass requirements in 2006.

Later in 2006, the DoD 5220.22-M operating manual removed text mentioning any recommended overwriting method. Instead, it delegated that decision to government oversight agencies (CSAs, or Cognizant Security Agencies), allowing those agencies to determine best practices for data sanitization in most cases.

Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in its Guidelines for Media Sanitization of 2006 (PDF), stated that “for ATA disk drives manufactured after 2001 (over 15 GB) clearing by overwriting the media once is adequate to protect the media.” When NIST revised its guidelines in late 2014, it reaffirmed that stance. NIST 800-88, Rev. 1 (PDF) states, “For storage devices containing magnetic media, a single overwrite pass with a fixed pattern such as binary zeros typically hinders recovery of data even if state of the art laboratory techniques are applied to attempt to retrieve the data.” (It noted, however, that hidden areas of the drive should also be addressed.)

For ATA hard disk drives and SCSI hard disk drives specifically, NIST states, “The Clear pattern should be at least a single write pass with a fixed data value, such as all zeros. Multiple write passes or more complex values may optionally be used.”

My org shreds discs entirely with a mechanical grinder, so I'm well aware of overkill.

Multiple overwrites being unnecessary isnt really an opinion. Here is the company that owns dban agreeing with security orgs like NIST, that anything past 1 write is unnecessary. .

I think the issue comes down to whether the org in question does that 7 passes consistently on all discs, or if it just so happened to start that policy with those that had evidence on them.

Dont forget the time barrier. India is 12hrs apart from PST. You submit an issue and dont hear a response for a whole day. Things that used to take minutes or hours take days or weeks instead, even for simple problems.

It's an option, but not the default. It takes forever to run, so someone using it is being very intentional.

It's also considered wildly overkill, especially with modern drives and their data density. Even a single pass of zeros, the fastest and default dban option, wipe data at a level that you would need a nation state actor to even try to recover data.

Honestly, that was what early reddit was like too. Lots and lots of cat pics.

"What? This motherfucker still cant see me? "

"...."

"YOU FUCKING GOT IT CHAMP. YOU WANT BIG? I GOT BIG!"

The DOJ release is correct, just not the headline.

The rate is equal to E-6 of E-9. Pretty standard level to reach depending on various factors, especially after 20 years enlisted.

Sounds like you want a siem like Wazuh. Its agent can collect journald logs from any number of systems. It also has a gui you can interact with to parse logs.

Pretty sure Texas has a cap on punitive damages at like 750k. The law explicitly disallows telling juries about this cap as well.

So no one is paying at least 59 million of it.

I know the correct pronunciation, but it will always be ware-ez to me.

Its currently in the humble choice bundle with 7 other games for $12.

December 16th, but probably just to plead.

These are likely state felonies, so she wont be able to avoid consequences. I'm betting her "givegpraysend" or whatever that shit is will pay the bills, though.

Yeah this seems like maintenance equipment for the grounds.

Ehh, i get it. I live in the same world.

Still, I would lean in if my org asked me to stand up a mastodon instance.

Taking on tech debt is pretty common thing for IT. We spend all day standing up services for various internal orgs.

Mature orgs should be able to automate deploy of services like mastodon, so depending on various factors it's not that big of an ask.

There is no law of diminishing returns. That's an aphorism, not an actual scientific principle. If your power source can generate the power, it does so.

You don't need to store an entire county's power per day. Thats never been anyone's goal, nor is it needed. You generate power for at least half of it, then continue to generate power with other green sources while also storing it.

You need to "restudy" the current state of battery tech and geothermal. There are huge arrays of different batteries being built now. These are 100hr storage batteries that cost 1/10 the price of lithium. They aren't on the drawing board, but rather being produced now in a mega factory.

There are also active MW scale "geothermal anywhere "plants in operation, with more coming. That same company has a 400MW geothermal plant that will be built in 4 years underway now. That alone is more competitive than nuclear.

The tech is here now, being built as we speak. Nuclear cant keep up.

So you agree that solar + battery resolves 90-99% of power needs now at a drastically reduced cost and build time than nuclear today?

I expect that 10% will get much closer to 1% in the next decade with all the versatile battery/solar tech coming onboard, but to compensate for solar fluctuations, you use wind, you use hydro, and you use the new "dig anywhere" steady state geothermal that is also being brought online today. We can run more HVDC lines to connect various parts of the country also. We are working on some now, but not enough. With a robust transmission system, solar gets 3hrs of "free" storage across our time zones. With better national connections, power flows from excess to where its needed, instead of being forced to be regional.

Worst case? You burn green hydrogen you made with your excess solar capacity in retrofitted natgas plants.

There are lots of answers to steady-state that are green and won't take 15-20 years to come online like the next nuclear plant. We should keep going with them, because they can help us now and in the future.

If you want more exact details about the batteries that array used, click on the link in my comment.

The array has a 380 MW battery and 1.4Gwh of output with 690Mw of solar production for 1.9 billion dollars. Splitting that evenly to 1 billion for the solar and 1 billion for the battery, we get 2.1Gw solar for 3 billion, and 12.6Gwh for 9 billion.

So actually, the solar array can match the nuclear output for 12 billion, assuming 12 hours of sun.

For 17 billion, we can get a 3.3Gw generation, and 15.6Gwh of battery. That means the battery array would charge in 7-8hrs of sun, and provide nearly 16hrs of output at 1Gwh, putting us at a viable array for just 8hrs of sun.

Can solar + battery tech do what nuclear does today, but much faster, likely cheaper and with mostly no downsides? That is a clear yes. Is battery and solar tech advancing at an exponential rate while nuclear tech is not? Also a clear yes.

Nuclear was the right answer 30 years ago. Solar + battery is the right answer now.

The gay bashing Russian asset who will shortly have top secret access to all of our intelligence services? Nah....