![]() You should do that regardless of the tool you use, but it is much more important for bad tools (additionally, lower quality tools often miss more data outright, which is much harder to verify). While these tools “recover” some files, they’ll have to be manually verified individually for integrity. There are many different ways to interpolate / extrapolate missing or damaged file system information, and some tools are just awful at that. In general if those 20 are okay it is likely most files are.įile systems are complex. If the images look fine the tool has successfully determined vital volume parameters such as the cluster size. When recovering data from a formatted volume, pick non deleted ones. To evaluate scan results I suggest the following: Locate a folder containing larger images and preview say 20 of them. Most tools offer a session load feature so you do not have to scan again even after restarting the tool. Most tools can be upgraded to the full version without having to restart the tool. In most tools the file save option is disabled. In general it is advised to first run the demo / trial version. Also on a regular basis, file system apparently present but produces only corrupt files. The CR3 case I mentioned, not a trace of the original file system, start of volume was overwritten by FF FF byte pattern. While carving may be less desired or perhaps not even needed in majority of cases as a whole, I actually get many 'logical' cases involving USB flash drives and memory cards where caving is in fact the only solution. They assumed end of file as soon as they detected the signature for the next file. All tools tried used a too simplistic method to carve the files and were only able to recognize the start of the file. When I looked into it issue turned out to be incorrect file size. For example, I had to carve CR3 files this week and all tools I tried (UFS, ReclaiMe, R-Studio, DMDE) only produced corrupt files. Now many file types do not care too much about file size, but some do. Knowing about the structure of for example a JPEG allows the carver to a degree recognize bogus files and to reliably come up with an accurate file size. A good carver knows the internal structure of a file like a generic file system tool knows about the internal structure of a file system. ![]() Many tools (even the good ones) are quite simplistic and only know how to recognize the start of a file. RAW recovery is a completely different challenge as you could regard file types, mini file systems in themselves. ![]() A tool like FileScavenger is made by people who do lots of recoveries themselves, this is also an ideal situation IMO. Solutions that will trickle down into the regular versions. I have heard people from UFS or ReclaiMe work closely with data recovery techs to solve a complex case with custom builds. Labs run into real world data loss scenarios all the time and if their tool of choice does not work they will let the maker know. If something is 'odd' they often quickly resort to a RAW scan.įeedback loop: Most of the tools that are quite good are the ones that are frequently used by professionals and this only makes them better. If done 'correctly' RecoverIt will not even be able to do RAW recovery! But, if everything is laid out right such tools may be perfectly able to recover your data. I have seen memory cards where you could easily fool a tool like Stellar if you purposely corrupt for example a boot sector. ![]() But also paid tools can be extremely bad at this. This is why Recuva can hardly be considered a serious tool, without a boot sector it does not stand a chance (which is why people format volumes to work around this, not being aware this may wipe out a perfectly good FAT). So a good tool has reliable algorithms and reproducible results for file system reconstruction without having to rely on single points of failures as for example boot sectors.Īnd the latter is where the 'not so good tools' are lacking I think. So if these file system entries are there, and we do all this right we can achieve good recovery. IOW, if we see file entry point to cluster whatever, we need to know size of whatever in sectors and point where we start counting from, the offset. As these file entries that can help find out files often point to *clusters*, we need to work out file system offset and cluster size. What these look like depends on the file system. Ideally we recover files + filenames + folder-structure, so what do we need for this? We need to work out what file system are we dealing with.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |