• caglararli@hotmail.com
  • 05386281520

Should a secure ATA erase be performed on a non-SSD drive?

Çağlar Arlı      -    15 Views

Should a secure ATA erase be performed on a non-SSD drive?

When running the command hdparm -I /dev/sda the following output is generated.

ATA device, with non-removable media
        Model Number:       WDC WD10JPVX-75JC3T0                    
        Serial Number:      WX51A9324970
        Firmware Revision:  01.01A01
        Transport:          Serial, SATA 1.0a, SATA II Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6, SATA Rev 3.0
Standards:
        Supported: 9 8 7 6 5 
        Likely used: 9
Configuration:
        Logical         max     current
        cylinders       16383   16383
        heads           16      16
        sectors/track   63      63
        --
        CHS current addressable sectors:    16514064
        LBA    user addressable sectors:   268435455
        LBA48  user addressable sectors:  1953525168
        Logical  Sector size:                   512 bytes
        Physical Sector size:                  4096 bytes
        Logical Sector-0 offset:                  0 bytes
        device size with M = 1024*1024:      953869 MBytes
        device size with M = 1000*1000:     1000204 MBytes (1000 GB)
        cache/buffer size  = 8192 KBytes
        **Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 5400**

Of interest is the description and value Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 5400. This indicates that the hard drive is mechanical and not flash.

There is support for ATA secure erase as suggested by the output albeit I would have not anticipated a secure erase taking as long as 198 mins.

Security: 
        Master password revision code = 65534
                supported
        not     enabled
        not     locked
        not     frozen
        not     expired: security count
                supported: enhanced erase
        198min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT. 198min for ENHANCED SECURITY ERASE UNIT.

Given that the device is not a solid state drive, should a secure ATA erase still be performed?

If no, why? If yes, why?

Would shred --verbose --random-source=/dev/urandom -n1 /dev/sda support the same or a similar outcome i.e. irrecoverable data including defective or deallocated sectors?