r/DataHoarder • u/SubstantialWing9238 • 2d ago
Discussion Last week was 19.2TB, this week RIP 154TB
51 x 3TB and 2 x 500GB. I would love to keep them or sell them but it’s a big company and all they care about is getting the data destruction certificate. They are pretty old though and definitely have tens of thousand of hours on them.
130
u/LaundryMan2008 2d ago
There should be a system where it’s encrypted to the teeth, key stored on a chip that can easily be unplugged, that chip can be drilled while the actual disk can still be used with a new chip plugged in, data effectively ruined once the chip has been drilled
121
u/Upset-Anywhere-7554 2d ago
You're assuming a middle manager would understand that instead of following the latest advice from a magazine.
49
u/virtualadept 86TB (btrfs) 2d ago
It's also assuming that the body that wrote the regulations care. They don't. They want (theoretically) simple to execute and prove solutions that somebody who graduated from high school with a D average and a hangover can look at and say "Yep, that's destroyed, all right."
16
u/SwizzleTizzle 2d ago
Yep, when it comes to compliance, attestation from a verified vendor that meets the policy/legislation/whatever is king above all else.
10
u/LaundryMan2008 2d ago
The one chip system should be easy to see, make the board red drawing from aviation safety rules making maintenance covers bright and visible, no convoluted thing, one bright screw like a stubby M.2 on the far end and a connector on the other end, even if that screw was lost, the data on the disk is ruined since the chip would probably be drilled at that point, even when I was tired at work experience, I never missed the WiFi chips on laptops when scrapping them.
If the person sees no red, that drive is wiped, if they see red, they take the red board out, that simple, maybe make the PCB a strong contrast like white or a lighter shade of green so you can immediately see where it is.
11
u/squirrel8296 2d ago
The problem is the regulators and insurance companies do not have anyone who understands the technology determining policy. Because they cannot physically see that there is no way to recover the data (like a hole in a hard drive) it is not good enough for them.
2
2
u/randylush 2d ago
This is a legit great and novel idea. Like the drive doesn’t function without the chip, but the chip is easy and cheap to replace.
3
u/LaundryMan2008 2d ago
To add to the chip idea, once it’s been used and a key is written onto it, it should blow a fuse in a spectacular way ripping itself off the board only leaving a pair of pads behind so you can see which boards need drilling and which ones are still fresh with an intact fuse.
I would suggest other more safer ways but I don’t know what would sit in a small SMD form factor and be obviously visible, there’s canister flags the size of a UK plug fuse, barber pole flags, solenoid driven flags but all of those are extremely large and outdated hailing from the 1950’s so a small fuse absolutely shitting its guts out is probably the only way to make it visible that it’s been used and be in a SMD form factor.
6
4
2
u/AGuyAndHisCat 66TB useable | 98TB raw 2d ago
Middle managers arent the issue, its getting the lawyer to undsrstand and sign off. The managers I can explain it to, the lawyers wont wven talk to us.
20
17
u/squirrel8296 2d ago
The problem is the insurance providers and the regulators.
Those folks almost never understand the actual tech, so they just keep enforcing the same practices that have been used for over 20 years now. Even if someone came out with a chip that could be pulled and destroyed instead of the drives, they would not change their requirements to allow that system instead.
Case in point Macs with either a T2 chip or Apple Silicon. Entering your password unlocks the T2 Chip or the Secure Enclave where the actual encryption key is stored. It does not directly decrypt the drive. Factory resetting one of those macs destroys the encryption keys stored in the T2 or Secure Enclave. Once the encryption key is destroyed, the T2 or Secure Enclave immediately generates a new encryption key that overwrites the old one and the drive is then encrypted with a new encryption key. Even if someone has the previous account password, the data is still unrecoverable because it would have still been encrypted with the old key that no longer exists and cannot be recovered. Yet, insurance providers and regulators still require drive destruction in those cases.
3
u/CTRSpirit 2d ago
Wait, given that SSDs in those Macs are soldered, you are telling that somewhere someone are busy physically destroying perfectly good Macs?
5
u/squirrel8296 2d ago
Yeah, a large proportion of corporate Macs since they switched to soldered SSDs end up having their logic boards shredded by data destruction services. It's why there have been so many parts-only Macs on the second-hand market without logic boards for several years now. Those are almost all ex-corporate machines.
My last job was in an industry where we dealt with sensitive business information for clients. Some of it would eventually become public knowledge but basically anything before the final product never did and if it did, it could cause major issues. The only way they could get an insurance policy that covered their computer data without having astronomical rates was by shredding logic boards on those Macs. For perspective, those insurance providers didn't allow the use of cloud file storage until the 2020s (basically because of COVID) even though the clients were using cloud on their end.
2
6
u/Mr2-1782Man 2d ago
That presumes the encryption will never be broken. History has proven over and over and over again the best encryption algorithms last a couple of decades at most. A lot of these systems also have flaws that can be taken advantage of. It may take time but they'll eventually get it.
The only secure data is data that doesn't exist.
3
u/woolharbor 2d ago
Meh. Introduces more errors. Adds small performance-overhead. If people cared, they'd just encrypt the drives anyway.
15
u/Shemsu_Hor_9 2d ago
Such a waste
2
u/Hour_Bit_5183 2d ago
yeah bro. We could use those. They would last a LONG time for home labbers. These big companies are punks and they are punks because people keep working for them, wasting their lives and taking slave pay vs what the peeps at the top get. I don't think folks are very smart in general these days
44
u/thekakashi7 2d ago
There should be a system to recycle them without compromising security or data.
36
u/RetroGrid_io 250-500TB 2d ago
There is, and there are plenty of vendors who take drives like this, pay a pittance, and come back with a certificate.
4
u/thekakashi7 2d ago
They why OP isn't doing it. I mean if it's safe and secure it would be better to recycle than destroy.
22
u/RetroGrid_io 250-500TB 2d ago edited 2d ago
Lawyer's paranoia & ignorance, + convenience.
It takes time to milspec destroy a drive. I just decomm'd a server a week or so ago, and it took > 24 hours to have it wipe its own 4 drives, and that's with shortcuts taken. Lots of folks would just rather beat it with a hammer.
5
u/cruzaderNO 2d ago
Because the drives are worth less than the cost of doing it, so they would just be paying the vendor more to take them.
A cert that they were degaussed and shredded is much cheaper than securely erased.
For larger capacity drives they can get a revenue split from the amount exceeding costs of erasure.
2
u/thekakashi7 2d ago
I see. Still i think government should promote recycling more than creating E-Waste. Maybe give tax benefits or points system where the cost of recycle somehow even out for company.
1
u/cruzaderNO 1d ago
Goverment/laws are going the other direction with demanding more stuff is destroyed.
There is a suggestion for EU (that is expected to pass) to require the full server to be destroyed as is if there was any sensitive or personal data on it.
So not just the drives, the motherboard/cpus/ram/nics/hba etc used also has to be destroyed.
And they are widening the scope of what data this applies for.Too many companies paid to wipe drives do it halfassed.
Germany that already has the requirement to destroy the full server also see certs issued for its destruction while they still find their way on ebay in bulk.0
u/BrokenMirror2010 1-10TB 2d ago
That's a good idea.
Why don't you email your lawmakers/politicians with a proposal and see if anyone supports that idea?
Worst case, you waste half an hour. Best case, someone actually finds your proposal interesting and writes up an actual bill or uses it as a promise to get (re)elected.
1
u/thekakashi7 2d ago edited 2d ago
I live in a third world country but we already have tax benefits system for recycling but only applicable to Vehicles and large appliances not Phone or Storage drive. But yeah i think i should write an email and do my part.
For e-waste there are few company which operates on Buy-reclycle-sell mandate and does all data erasing work.
2
u/cruzaderNO 2d ago
If they want a erasure cert they are gone have to pay to deliver them tho, these are worth less than the time to do so.
12
u/bobbywaz 2d ago
At least sell the caddies, they are so hard to get nowadays because everyone throws them into the destruction pile, you can get really cheap chassis and no caddies
64
u/randylush 2d ago
There needs to be legislation that protects corporations who recycle their drives instead of destroying them.
Destroying these drives should be illegal honestly. It’s so wasteful. Shameful
22
u/msthe_student 2d ago
Depending on what they were used for destruction might basically be legally mandated
12
u/randylush 2d ago
which is why there needs to be legislation that protects corporations who recycle their drives instead of destroying them
6
u/stoatwblr 2d ago
Regardless of policy or law, you get idiots who simply toss desktop systems into skips despite direct orders not to do it - even if it's an instant dismissal offence they STILL do it.
It's up there with the idiot manager I had who disposed of a dozen old mercury arc rectifiers by putting them out in city trash. That caused several million dollars of decontamination efforts at the local landfill a few weeks later. (It was about half a litre of mercury, not trace amounts and the landfill was adjacent to a river with leachate problems already manifesting.
17
u/OkSeaworthiness1511 2d ago
Purely unethical hypothetical question here....are the serial #s recorded prior to destruction? If not someone could just....say swap them out with a bunch of bad 3TB drives.....
13
u/xomichaelxo 2d ago
Unethical? From where I’m from, that’s called ingenuity.
Seize the retired means of production and everything like that.
1
u/OkSeaworthiness1511 2d ago
I agree but its unethical because obviously you're trying to be dishonest and cheat a system even though that system would be paying for it to be destroyed more than likely.
9
u/virtualadept 86TB (btrfs) 2d ago
Probably, yes. Serial number tracking is part of the compliance process (and the serials go on the proof-of-destruction certificate).
3
u/OkSeaworthiness1511 2d ago
I have another unethical hypothetical question....thermal label and chatgpt anyone?
4
u/Ok-Replacement6893 2d ago
I've done this before. With this many drives too. We had a contraption that you put the drive on a conveyor belt and it takes it in and degauses it, then brings it out to the next stage where it folds it in half with a ram, and then goes into the next stage where the drive actually gets shredded into pieces
3
1
u/Comfortable_Self_736 2d ago
I only ever got to see the degaussing. The shredding was off-site. Although we did get pictures.
5
u/crazydave33 2d ago
Why the hell do they physically destroy them? Is there no way to securely wipe all data with no possibility of recovery or is that not a thing? They would still sell for a good amount of $$ despite the age and wear.
16
u/itstanktime 2d ago
The amount that they would get for them is inconsequential compared to what would happen if one got out and still had something left on it. It’s a nuke the site from orbit perspective.
13
u/virtualadept 86TB (btrfs) 2d ago
There are plenty of companies who operate in regulatory regimes that require all data storage media be physically destroyed, with proof of destruction. Simply wiping the drive is insufficient.
Regulatory compliance also studiously avoids anything like common sense, on the theory that even though it makes sense at the time the rules were written, technology may have advanced such that the rules either don't functionally apply anymore (i.e., you can't do the thing to the drive because the drive doesn't support it anymore), or that the entity that must comply says the drive doesn't do the thing but it actually does and they're trying to cheap out. I'm dealing with that at $dayjob right now and soldered-in Macbook SSDs.
tl;dr - You can't go wrong with audited, proven physical destruction.
7
u/Sentient-Exocomp 50-100TB 2d ago
Yep. In federal gov work, I’ve tossed drives into a powerful shredder. That’s what was required.
3
u/virtualadept 86TB (btrfs) 2d ago
Same. They went right into a shredder that looked like it could be used on interns as well as hard drives. I've also had to drop drives into a degausser that sounded like a cannon going off when the capacitors discharged and the drive jumped twelve inches straight up and bounced off of a steel plate (not only did it wipe the platters, it toasted the ICs on the board).
6
u/Fauropitotto 2d ago
The real question is, why do we have to keep explaining this to people in every single thread?
5
u/virtualadept 86TB (btrfs) 2d ago
Beats me. It seems like the kind of question that should be answered in this subreddit's wiki, but I don't know how many people even look at it, let alone search the subreddit to see if it's been answered before.
2
u/msthe_student 2d ago
Also: Encrypt + wipe + destroy is more reliable than just encrypt + wipe. Swiss cheese model.
2
u/stoatwblr 2d ago
It's cheaper than the labour costs of supervising an erasure cycle. Scrappers seldom pay anything for old drives so it's a matter of minimising exposure at lowest cost.
2
u/Quasi_Evil 2d ago
From a company's perspective, the liability risk of one drive get loose and leak is massive compared with whatever pittance they'd get from selling them. Plus, a lot of times it's written into either the contract for getting access to the data or into various regulations because of the same reason.
Plus, big companies have no idea how to sell used hardware anyway. Or for that matter how to deal with anybody who can't fill out 45 pages of approved vendor paperwork and isn't another giant company. Show up with a checkbook? Literally no idea how to deal with you.
1
2
2
u/sonspike187 2d ago
Ex-Iron Mountain here. The amount of HDDs and SSDs we literally shredded broke my heart. 😭
2
2
1
u/Beneficial_Bit1756 2d ago
Id use those in my nas for my 2nd backup and just swap them out as they die. I have currently 12x20 running.
1
1
1
u/Hurricane_32 10-50TB 15h ago
If you have to shred them, please, please don't destroy the caddies as well...
1
1
u/cr0ft 1d ago
3TB drives are literally not worth the power to run them anymore. Well, I suppose with the way prices are going... but yeah, power is expensive. Better to have one 26TB than a bunch of 3's.
3
u/ykkl 1d ago
They're fine for cold storage.
2
u/AppropriateDinner528 1d ago
This is what I use my 4TB drives for. I had planned on selling them, but giving current pricing, I am better off repurposing them for cold storage.
2
2
u/Laugh-Aggressive 1d ago
But then again, the same data, on one 26TB drive vs spread out on nine 3TB, which is the biggest risk?
1
u/OkSeaworthiness1511 1d ago
That part is true in a way. For me I would install them in a shelf unit and have them setup at a location with free power and an internet connection.
1
1
0
u/Dwro1234 2d ago
If all they care about is the data destruction certificate, that's doable via software. The hardware cannbe reused, sold as part of IT-ASD or even donated. Anything else is just a waste. Only 15 states have strict ewaste laws for companies though.
0
u/Thebandroid 2d ago
I’m sure in the current market there is a space for a company that gives out certificates for data destruction for the same or a lower price as the ones who destroy the drives, wipes them by digital means, and can re sell them making up for extra time spent wiping them.
SSD’s especially, tend to have firmware commands that reset the voltages across the boards, irreversibly wiping the data without having to wait for a full rewrite like hdds.
1
u/FactoryRatte 50-100TB 1d ago
They have? I have only seen them overwriting their AES Keys with a new random one and marking everything for erasure, which will be erased eventually but not guaranteed in a timely manner.
1
u/Thebandroid 1d ago
I haven't tried it personally but yes, It seems to be referred to as "SSD Secure Erase" but because its relies of vendor specific firmware instructions, you need to use their own software to achieve it. It does seem like all the big players have it though. here is kingstons page https://www.kingston.com/en/blog/personal-storage/how-to-securely-erase-ssd.
I have also read about wiping from the BIOS but I don't know how that works exactly.
This is different to cryptographic erase which is what you mentioned.
345
u/Possibly-Functional 100-250TB 2d ago
I will likely do the same to 130TB of enterprise SSDs in a few weeks... The lowest health at 70%, many are above 90%. It hurts just thinking about.