There is this one too )
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=3387/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0/
Here's a quote out of the 1st paper that sums it up well…
I've just spent some time reading that first paper. I'm pretty much disappointed. I'm sure everyone who wants and trusts recovery to be impossible will gladly cite it – but very little if anything at all in the paper actually supports that thesis.
Read it. Read it critically – try to find faults. Read it responsibly – which means skipping the entire Introduction. Refer to it when you need to, but for now just concentrate on how the tests (which I assume have been the foundation for the paper) were performed. That is, read 'Data and Method', and perhaps also 'Data Relationships'. Don't read Conclusion until you understand how and why the media were selected, how the tests were made, how the error estimates presented were established. You may even try to find out if the test involved MFM at all. (If it did, you may want to inquire into who performed the test, how it was done – on all disks, or only a subset, and if it was a blind test or not).
Then read Conclusion, and decide if those conclusions are supported by the test methodology and the stated results. And perhaps also evaluate any remaining '?' you have scribbled in the margin to see if they can be removed, or must be kept.
Personally, I find no clear statement of what question the study should settle. There is a reference to a controversy, but there's no statement of just what it is.
Instead, I get the impression that the authors are shifting the goalposts somewhat the question seems to end up into the question if Gigabyte or Terabyte of data can be recovered, as that's what relevant for forensic analysis. But as it is not clear from the beginning that that is what the controversy is about, that question is not clearly relevant.
I also find an indication of bias in the first statement of the conclusion "The purpose of this paper was a categorical settlement to the controversy surrounding the misconceptions involving the belief that data can be recovered following a wipe
procedure". The word 'misconception' is a very strong suggestion that the authors may have known what results they would come up with – and that vitiates their results to some extent, unless they are able to demonstrate how their method and results are bias free. (Do they succeed in doing so? See my reading suggestions above.)
The paper does not convince me. I should probably say that I'm reasonably convinced that one wipe does the trick – unless the powers that be have convinced HDD manufacturers to leave more data traces than expected. However, the paper does not strengthen that opinion one bit.
And here a link to a previous discussion about degaussing and perpendicular recording
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=10123/jaclaz
There is this one too )
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=3387/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0/
Thanks Paul and Jaclaz.
Tangentially, my personal experimentation in the field of flash memory (think USB & SSD) shows that there are actual chemical changes which can be detected in failed floating gates (FG).
The best approach I have been able to use is within the same failed blocks, where there is higher correlation of damage type in the polycrystalline silicon.
My fun does not extend to charge trap flash as I do not have the equipment to deal with v-nand solutions. I do not believe this is impossible though.
The dispute continues…
If anybody has, or claims to have any tangible results from this method of data recovery could they please be more specific, or if they know of any tangible documented results from elsewhere could they please provide a link?
Like most other people, I am skeptical due to the complete lack of reliable results that have been documented. If anyone has anything to the contrary then I'd love to be proven wrong.