Talk:Gutmann method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

NPOV Issues[edit]

Does Gutmann's paper mention any join experiment involving the FBI & NSA?

Many of the aspects of Gutmanns paper, although very interesting, are not proven in any way. I removed some of these from the article and added som hopefully NPOV criticism Zelda 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just adding some criticism doesn't make the Article NPOV. Could someone else look in to this - there are no sources cited that MFM (magnetic force microscopy) can't recover deleted files, could someone add them who is into this topic, thx -- 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to criticism paranoia (And some people are clearly paranoid), but there ARE methods to recover overwritten data, one of them mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Can you provide refs for any method that can recover overwritten data? I note that no companies currently offer such a service. Having said that, this article is about the obsolete Gutmann method, and so I guess it should mention what could be done with drives around when he wrote the paper, and then maybe mentioning the fact that those methods don't work for any modern drive. Dan Beale 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


"The permittivity of a medium changes with the frequency of the magnetic field" (sic). I suspect this should be permeability, as permittivity is the analogous property for the ELECTRIC field. Pwainwright 08:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

software that uses the Gutmann method[edit]

What happened to the links to Eraser and Window Washer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They did not comply with Wikipedia's external link guideline. -- intgr [talk] 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't IObit's Advanced Systemcare be mentioned? It is capable of using the Gutmann-method, after all. D00M1N8R (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Who is the big quote in the Criticism section from? (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Believed Slight Error In Technical Overview[edit]

I'm not an expert in this field (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but logic says that, on the third column of the second table showing an example of one process of recovering data, the previous signal should be +10, not -10, because the difference is +1. Can someone check this? Thanks, HANtwister (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the table is correct, the original 'error' was -0.9, which (when amplified) is -9.0, the ideal signal is +/-10, therefore -10+1=-9, difference=+1. (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"So a low frequency signal will still be detectable even after it has been overwritten hundreds of times by a high frequency signal"

Absolute bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Criticism Section Reverted[edit]

A user known only as removed a reference to a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) that was critical of Gutmann's original paper. The reference was well-linked, the NBER is a reputable source (see the Wikipedia article on same), and their critical paper is topical and well-written. I'm especially suspicious, because this is the only Wikipedia edit ever recorded for I've re-inserted the reference.

Ross Fraser (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)