guru wrote:
Blancco is overated. It fails lots of drives for no real reason where other products pass.
I have no reason to defend Blancco, but the evaluation report which I saw indicated that some other erasure products sometimes did not list drives as an erasure failure, when there was a good reason to do so! Who says the behaviour of the "other products" which you mention, is "correct"?
It all depends on the definition of "real reason". If any erasure software can't be sure that the drive is erased to meet the required erasure standard (e.g. some blocks found to be unreadable after erasure, meaning that erasure of those blocks cannot be confirmed), then listing the drive as an erasure failure is an appropriate reaction IMHO - otherwise what is the point of the certification and audit report, if all blocks were not definitely erased?!
If you have a specific example of a Blancco erasure log where it screwed-up in some way, then I'm interested to learn from that evidence, so that I can warn others of the specific problem when I'm answering any similar question in future. Without that info, it's impossible to know whether Blancco actually screwed-up, or whether it made a [IMHO] better (e.g. more justifyable, or more cautious) decision about listing the erasure as a failure, than the "other products" which you mention.
guru wrote:
And only certain Blancco products are "Certified" ;o)
Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks. That wasn't an issue when I was involved, since whatever Blancco product was being evaluated at that time, was certified to the (US and European) standards required by the corporate customer. But this point might be important for the OP.