I Bought 1st Amazon Drive in Steve's "Bad Drive" List

[Roncerr]

The result says the highest valid region is almost the same as the declared drive size(268GB), and the validated drive size is 72.8GB, since that is the location of the first red block. There are very few red blocks and all the rest are green. To me, it seems that neither of these numbers are very meaningful, since they only tell you the the locations of the first non-green block and the last green block. It seems to me that the ratio of green blocks to the total number of blocks would tell you the usefulness of the drive. That is, unless the drive pretends to write data into the first red block, as though nothing was wrong, so any data supposedly there, really isn't there, in which case the "validated drive size" is the only meaningful number. Obviously, I could use some help interpreting the results. Should I return this drive to Amazon since it's "validated" size is too small, even though there are very few red blocks?


Report #1
test date and time 11/5/2023 at 6:36 PM
declared drive size 268,435,456,000 (268GB)
validated drive size 72,827,707,392 (72.8GB)
highest valid region 267,968,610,304 (268GB)
hub or drive vendor usb
hub or drive product mass_storage
serial number 00000000000000043e

 

[PHolder]

Let me get this straight...? You INTENTIONALLY bought a bad drive, and now you're asking "Should I return this drive to Amazon ..." Ummm...

 

[DarkwinX]

In my opinion if you have a drive that reports back with information such as what you are seeing, I would be throwing it out as I wouldn't even want to rely on the "working" storage. Who knows how long it will work for.

 

[Roncerr]

Based on the replies, so far, I should rephrase my question. I 'd like to better understand the results of the Validrive test, not just for the one I bought. It's my understanding, based on my listening to the Security Now! podcast since episode 1, that no drive is perfect and that as a drive is used it continuously marks regions bad, as it discovers them, and doesn't reuse them. It also doesn't lie to Windows about it's capacity. Steve created Validrive due to his experience with certain drives that lie to Windows. As Steve says in his intro on the exe "This misrepresentation is diabolical because a drive with much less actual storage will not be detected during normal use by any operating system." So my question can be rephrased as follows: Is the true capacity of a drive with, say, 99% green blocks and 1% red blocks, determined by the location of the first red block (the "validated" size) or by the percentage of green blocks. If the location of the first red block is indeed all that's important, is the reason that the existence of this red block is hidden in such a way that if a user tries to store data on this drive, beyond the "validaded" size, it will appear to be stored, but in fact, will not be stored, which fact will not become evident until the user attempts to read something that was supposedly stored at the location of the first red block?

 

[ShadowMeow]

https://www.grc.com/validrive/the-report.htm

 

[DarkwinX]

@Roncerr as per the link James has posted it seems intentional that the first red square controls the validates drive size

• validated drive size – After filling-in the entire drive map, ValiDrive scans from the front of the drive to find the first non-green (non-validated) region. It uses the end of this region as the drive's validated size, which it reports in exact bytes and common units.

 

[Roncerr]

Yes, I saw that. I still would like to know the answer to the rest of my question: "If the location of the first red block is indeed all that's important, is the reason that the existence of this red block is hidden in such a way that if a user tries to store data on this drive, beyond the "validaded" size, it will appear to be stored, but in fact, will not be stored, which fact will not become evident until the user attempts to read something that was supposedly stored at the location of the first red block?"

 

[ShadowMeow]

Can you redo the scan and save then share the .rtf file?

 

[Roncerr]

When I tried to do that originally, the picture didn't show up. I'll try it again. See attached .rtf file.

 

[DarkwinX]

I think the answer is we can't be certain what will happen as that is between the controller and the physical storage - just that it's untrustworthy.

it's likely that in this instance if data was stored in the region approximated by the red square then it possibly wouldn't attempt to store it at all.

Edit: I don't think you attached anything

if you want to go beyond what validrive can show them perhaps something like HW2test might suit to test the drive in its entirety.

 

[Roncerr]

When I tried to do that originally, the picture didn't show up. I'll try it again. See attached .rtf file.

Didn't show any attachment. I believe it will let me post the txt version. Let's see.

Yes, only the txt version can be posted in this forum.

But as I said in the first post: "There are very few red blocks and all the rest are green."

 

[DanR]

these numbers are very meaningful

To me.

declared drive size 268,435,456,000 (268GB)
validated drive size 72,827,707,392 (72.8GB)
highest valid region 267,968,610,304 (268GB)

What these numbers tell me is that this drive is unhealthy, untrustworthy, unreliable. The NAND in this device appears to have serious problems. I would only expect this NAND to continue to degrade. This drive should not be used for data storage.

ValiDrive apparently uses the first red area to calculate its "validated" drive size. This works well for clear obvious fakes, but not so much for troubled drives with failing NAND.

 

[DanR]

Didn't show any attachment.

You should be able to post the full report with the drive map image.

 

[Roncerr]

You should be able to post the full report with the drive map image.

Based on my attempts, I can't. Can you post an rtf file (or any image file) to show us it can be done. Then I'll reformat the file the same way, and post it. Thanks.

 

[ShadowMeow]

Example Image Attached

 

[Roncerr]

To me.

What these numbers tell me is that this drive is unhealthy, untrustworthy, unreliable. The NAND in this device appears to have serious problems. I would only expect this NAND to continue to degrade. This drive should not be used for data storage.

ValiDrive apparently uses the highest validated green area to calculate its "validated" drive size. This works well for clear obvious fakes, but not so much for troubled drives with failing NAND.

I fully agree with your second sentence.

Example Image Attached

Thanks. I copied the rtf with snipping tool and saved it as a png. See attached.

 

[ShadowMeow]

Unless your keeping it for research I would return this drive to Amazon.

 

[Roncerr]

Unless your keeping it for research I would return this drive to Amazon.

Thanks for answering my first question. The second is equally important to me, and, although long, it's phrased as a yes or no question: "If the location of the first red block is indeed all that's important, is the reason that the existence of this red block is hidden in such a way that if a user tries to store data on this drive, beyond the "validaded" size, it will appear to be stored, but in fact, will not be stored, which fact will not become evident until the user attempts to read something that was supposedly stored at the location of the first red block?"

A simpler, third question might be: Can I tell Amazon that the drive will definitely not store more than 72.8 GB, even though it was sold as 256 GB.

 

[ShadowMeow]

Beyond the validated size data may appear to write, but cannot be read back, the data enters a void of nothingness. Because there are a few red blocks before the end of the validated size suggests failing NAND or a FIRMWARE issue. Who knows what else is wrong with it since Validrive just checks if its a fake.

 

[ShadowMeow]

A simpler, third question might be: Can I tell Amazon that the drive will definitely not store more than 72.8 GB, even though it was sold as 256 GB.

They won't know what Validrive is or care. It's simpler just to return it as defective goods.