Difference between pages "Talk:Sanitization Standards" and "Talk:Write Blockers"

From ForensicsWiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(How are they more valuable than mount -o ro?)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
GOST R 50739-95 says nothing about number of passes and random data. [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 11:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
+
== How are they more valuable than mount -o ro? ==
  
I may have been misinformed, my russian is non existant. Would you know where to get documentation? [[User:Fsck|Fsck]] 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
+
To add value, wouldn't a write-blocker need to be infallible, then *proven* to be infallible? (That is, proven to be as such, within the margin demonstrated by proving compliance with RTCA/DO-178B using Criticality Level 1). [[User:John Crout|johnc]] 17:49, 28 December 2011 (PST)
 
+
:: Gostechcommission defines following requirements in management directive: computer-based systems with protection class 3А, , 1А, 1Б, 1В or 1Г (Russian letters) should wipe external memory and RAM with two passes of random data (www.internet-law.ru/standarts/safety/gtk009.doc). [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
+

Revision as of 20:49, 28 December 2011

How are they more valuable than mount -o ro?

To add value, wouldn't a write-blocker need to be infallible, then *proven* to be infallible? (That is, proven to be as such, within the margin demonstrated by proving compliance with RTCA/DO-178B using Criticality Level 1). johnc 17:49, 28 December 2011 (PST)