FREERASER + VERACRYPT

You do realize police can always just put tazer to your gonads and keep pressing the button until you tell them the password, right?

But if we're talking encrypting over erased file, then yes, it should make the file safely unrecoverable. However, if this particularly shameful folder / file came off the internet it can be traced to you by ISP traffic history.

>>57695563
>encrypt its original directory

This is where you have it ass backwards. If you've erased the file the reference is gone and the offending blocks, which may be anywhere on the disk, won't be encrypted. Sure they've been overwritten but you wanted paranoid level security.

Encrypt the file first, then shred it. No fuss, no muss, no electrodes on your bollocks.

If you die the information will become irretrievable.
Assuming AES-256, that information should be secure for a good 100 years.

>>57695563
Veracrypt is a honeypot faggot.

>>57696136
It's been audited.
I was skeptical at first, but the source code is still available, and it's been audited.
What you should worry is the NSA intercepting your download of the binaries.

>>57696169
I audited your mum's ass lass night, your point?

>>57696183
My point is that you should learn what words mean.
I'm not going to explain to you what an audit is.

>>57695563
>If I delete a file with Freeraser and then encrypt its original directory with VeraCrypt, will it be unaccesible from the rest of the PC? Even by the police?
I don't follow your logic. If you shred the file, why would encrypting it make any difference?

>>57696213
He meant to say it the other way around. Encrypt a copy the file and then delete the original.

I think...

>>57696255
well then we can assume the shredded original is unrecoverable so it depends on the strength of the encryption

ccleaner or eraser?

>>57696355
GNU shred

>>57696393
which doesn't answer my question

>>57695563
No, you moron
You're supposed to encrypt first and then shred.
They can still see you had the files on your drive if you just deleted and then encrypted because the "empty" sectors are not meddled with during the encryption process. Depending on how poorly you did the shredding, it's still possible to reconstruct the files even if you encrypt the drive afterwards.

>>57696895
what is he supposed to do the encryption with?

>>57696761
Get out of /g/ fucking illeterate normie

File: security.png (26KB, 448x274px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 448x274px

>>57695608
Pic related
>>57696303
But why would you want to depend on encryption if the original task was to make it unrecoverable?
Shouldn't OP just keep to using freeraser?

OP is a faggot.

>>57698850
>can't even spell illiterate

https://www.magnetforensics.com/computer-forensics/oh-no-the-suspect-ran-ccleaner-to-get-rid-of-the-evidence/

https://www.magnetforensics.com/computer-forensics/part-2-oh-no-the-suspect-wiped-free-space-to-get-rid-of-the-digital-evidence/


>The subject can use all sorts of ‘sanitation’ or anti-forensic techniques, but there are many artifacts left behind in areas that these consumer-level tools do not address or affect, that even when used, a full Internet artifact analysis is still worthwhile and likely to produce results.


what do you think of this?

>>57699193
This article is talking about wiping free space, which wont touch in most cases the MFT where filenames, size etc is saved.

There is no way anyone can do anything after a full disk wipe.

>>57695563
You scared bro

File: 1478128329954.jpg (29KB, 600x595px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x595px

>>57699174
>dumb normie falling for a meme
color me shocked
cancerous sub-IQ worm

>>57696203
Was only PARTLY audited iirc

How good is the TuneUp Shredder using Gutmann?

File: M.jpg (49KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 540x960px

>>57695563
>not literally shredding your hardware if you're compromised

File: 1451000015392.gif (2MB, 441x329px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 441x329px

>>57698893
>posting xkcd

>>57704196
dumb niggerposter

File: 1.jpg (54KB, 618x456px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 618x456px

>>57695563
Is "US DoD" method safe?