Selecting a data erasure standard is no longer a purely security-driven decision. In modern infrastructures—where storage capacities reach 16 TB and beyond, and SSDs and NVMe drives dominate—using outdated erasure standards introduces operational inefficiencies, hardware damage, unnecessary energy consumption, and compliance misalignment.
Yet many organizations continue to rely on legacy erasure methods not because they are more secure, but because data retention and sanitization policies have not been updated.
The Gutmann method, introduced by Peter Gutmann in 1996, was designed for a very different technological era. At the time:
The method proposed 35 overwrite passes, each targeting different encoding schemes used by HDDs of that era. Even Gutmann later clarified that applying all 35 passes to modern drives is unnecessary and ineffective.
Today, attempting to apply the Gutmann method to a multi-terabyte HDD—or worse, an SSD or NVMe drive—is operationally impractical and technically unjustified.
The DoD 5220.22-M overwrite standard became popular because it was easy to reference, defensible in audits, and widely copied into internal security and retention policies. However:
Despite this, many organizations still mandate DoD-style overwrites—not for security reasons, but because updating governance documentation is slow, complex, and often deprioritized.
This creates a growing gap between policy language and modern storage reality.
NIST SP 800-88 Revision 1 introduced a fundamental shift:
IEEE 2883 further reinforces this approach with guidance tailored to modern storage lifecycles.
These standards recognize a key principle: More overwrites do not mean more security.
Multi-pass overwriting accelerates write cycles, reducing the lifespan of flash-based storage and increasing replacement costs—without improving security.
Legacy overwriting standards can take days to erase large-capacity drives, making them unsuitable for modern data center operations.
Long erasure cycles consume excessive power and cooling resources, increasing operational expense and environmental impact.
Organizations may believe they are exceeding security requirements, while they are misaligned with current standards and best practices.
The continued use of legacy erasure standards is rarely driven by technical necessity. Instead, it is typically caused by:
Until retention and sanitization policies are updated to reference NIST SP 800-88 or IEEE 2883, organizations remain locked into inefficient and damaging erasure practices.
Modernizing erasure standards requires more than changing a line in a policy document. It requires aligning governance, technology, and execution.
Overty helps organizations:
By combining policy guidance with purpose-built erasure technologies, Overty enables organizations to adapt to modern storage technologies without putting sensitive data at risk.
Using legacy erasure standards is not a sign of higher security maturity. In many cases, it is evidence of outdated governance.
By updating data retention policies and adopting modern erasure standards such as NIST SP 800-88 and IEEE 2883, organizations can:
With Overty, organizations can modernize their data erasure strategy with confidence—ensuring security, efficiency, and compliance across today’s complex IT environments.
In data erasure, the right standard matters more than the number of overwritten passes.