On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:03:09 -0700, anonymousNetUser
<mickey@disney.com> wrote:
>Unless I can explain it, the regulator won't just accept that mistakes
>happen and CDs can "go bad" or be burned bad.
>
>We've since initiated new procedures in place to prevent this in the
>future, but I was hoping maybe if I could provide anecdotal evidence of
>something similar happening previously, it'd help.
Burned CDs *definitely* "go bad", you can find plenty of research
and anecdotal evidence about that on the web.
>I work in Compliance for a manufacturing company in a HIGHLY regulated
>industry and I've inherited this problem. I now have to explain how it
>happened to a (non-technical) regulator or the company faces potentially
>huge fines. The regulator isn't buying just "the CD was corrupted when
>it was created."
The damage was done.
Could an EXPLAINATION excuse your company from her fault?
I don't think so.
Your company has hired someone incompetent, someone skipping
the CD verification (by windiff or other means) with the source
right after burning a CD.
The only explanation you can give is to admit the fault where
your company does not hold a process in place, to enforce source
codes verification right after archiving them to CD's.
Harry331 wrote:
> anonymousNetUser wrote...
>
>> I work in Compliance for a manufacturing company in a HIGHLY regulated
>> industry and I've inherited this problem. I now have to explain how it
>> happened to a (non-technical) regulator or the company faces potentially
>> huge fines. The regulator isn't buying just "the CD was corrupted when
>> it was created."
>
> The damage was done.
> Could an EXPLAINATION excuse your company from her fault?
> I don't think so.
I agree. However, the regulator has asked for an explanation. In this
industry, when a regulator asks for something, you provide it.
>
> Your company has hired someone incompetent, someone skipping
> the CD verification (by windiff or other means) with the source
> right after burning a CD.
And thankfully, the guilty party is no longer with the company (not for
this, but for other infractions far worse).
> The only explanation you can give is to admit the fault where
> your company does not hold a process in place, to enforce source
> codes verification right after archiving them to CD's.
To be fair, the process was never documented until I came along. And
prior to this incident, no one in the company did any sort of verification.
The company's already admitted fault for not having a better process in
place at the time. (The original CD was created over a year ago.)
But as I said, the regulator doing the investigation insists on an
explanation.
As far as the software going into our machines--it's on EPROMs, so EPROM
samples are provided to all regulators.
Interestingly, this is the only regulatory body that accepts the CD copy
as the "official" copy--all others accept the EPROM sample supplied with
the submission to the "official" copy and don't hold a bad CD at fault.
>I agree. However, the regulator has asked for an explanation. In this
>industry, when a regulator asks for something, you provide it.
I have had experience burning CD archives and then found out (by
windiff) that some resultant CDs have had cyclic redundent errors.
The only explanation I could guess, for myself, was that there may
be small electrical interfence during the burning processes that
make a byte or more of data not burning correctly during the burning
process. God know what the cause was (for my clyclic redundent errors..
But even as a hobbist, I windiff my CD archive right after the CD
is burnt. So, as a company delivery software, why would there be
no verfification in place?
>To be fair, the process was never documented until I came along. And
>prior to this incident, no one in the company did any sort of verification.
No one blame you. So, "to be fair" should be addressed between your
company and the customers. It is only fair for your company to pay
some sort of panelty w.r.t. the customers who have sufferred due to
the faiult of your company.
>The company's already admitted fault for not having a better process in
>place at the time. (The original CD was created over a year ago.)
>
>But as I said, the regulator doing the investigation insists on an
>explanation.
If I were you, I would try to "simulate" a faulty CD burning on a
PC similar to the one which the fault was created a year ago.
Say, use Roxio to burn a sample of the source codes over and over again,
500 times, 1000 times maybe, and hofully creating a faulty CD as the one
held by the regulator. Maybe burning 1000 CD's, and find out that there
may exist one or more CD's having cyclic redundent error, just to
"explain" to the regulator that CD burning is not 100% error proof.
And due to lock of verification process a year ago, such faulty CD
was leaked out of your company.
A good CD will become bad (as your symtom description) by storage for
a year ? I don't believe it.
I have CD's burnt 3 years ago and I could still retrieve data from my
archieves I windiff'ed the majority of them whenever I created them,
except for movies copies.
On Aug 3, 1:24*am, harryooopot...@hotmail.co_ (Harry331) wrote:
> anonymousNetUser wrote...
> >I agree. However, the regulator has asked for an explanation. In this
> >industry, when a regulator asks for something, you provide it.
>
> I have had experience burning CD archives and then found out (by
> windiff) that some resultant CDs have had cyclic redundent errors.
> The only explanation I could guess, for myself, was that there may
> be small electrical interfence during the burning processes that
> make a byte or more of data not burning correctly during the burning
> process. *God know what the cause was (for my clyclic redundent errors...
> But even as a hobbist, I windiff my CD archive right after the CD
> is burnt. So, as a company delivery software, why would there be
> no verfification in place?
>
> >To be fair, the process was never documented until I came along. And
> >prior to this incident, no one in the company did any sort of verification.
>
> No one blame you. So, "to be fair" should be addressed between your
> company and the customers. It is only fair for your company to pay
> some sort of panelty w.r.t. the customers who have sufferred due to
> the faiult of your company.
>
> >The company's already admitted fault for not having a better process in
> >place at the time. (The original CD was created over a year ago.)
>
> >But as I said, the regulator doing the investigation insists on an
> >explanation.
>
> If I were you, I would try to "simulate" a faulty CD burning on a
> PC similar to the one which the fault was created a year ago.
> Say, use Roxio to burn a sample of the source codes over and over again,
> 500 times, 1000 times maybe, and hofully creating a faulty CD as the one
> held by the regulator. *Maybe burning 1000 CD's, and find out that there
> may exist one or more CD's having cyclic redundent error, just to
> "explain" to the regulator that CD burning is not 100% error proof.
> And due to lock of verification process a year ago, such faulty CD
> was leaked out of your company.
>
> A good CD will become bad (as your symtom description) by storage for
> a year ? I don't believe it.
> I have CD's burnt 3 years ago and I could still retrieve data from my
> archieves I windiff'ed the majority of them whenever I created them,
> except for movies copies.
Without seeing a disk if is very difficult to speculate the reason for
failure. It appears that it may be a logical failure, rather than
physical, as files can be read, but the incorrect data is restored -
ie a mixture of two files.
You say that 2/3 of your files have problems in WinDiff. Does this
mean that 1/3 of your files are 100% correct, or on each file 1/3 of
the file incorrect.
If 1/3 are correct, are they in a specific area of the disk, and has
the disk been appnded to?
As you only have the copy, it is difficult to know how accurate it is.
I have just looked through my recovery notes and once I had a NTFS
hard drive where many sectors had been shifted by just 36 bytes. On
this basis, it is possible that the original hard drive had the
problem and there is nothing wrong with your CD. I have also had
memory chips (FAT16) where areas of data have been shifted. Camera
chips often have very odd, unexplained problems. Recovery is normally
possible by taking an image of the media and inserting or cutting to
get sectors back to the correct location.
mscotgrove@aol.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 1:24 am, harryooopot...@hotmail.co_ (Harry331) wrote:
>> anonymousNetUser wrote...
>>> I agree. However, the regulator has asked for an explanation. In this
>>> industry, when a regulator asks for something, you provide it.
>> I have had experience burning CD archives and then found out (by
>> windiff) that some resultant CDs have had cyclic redundent errors.
>> The only explanation I could guess, for myself, was that there may
>> be small electrical interfence during the burning processes that
>> make a byte or more of data not burning correctly during the burning
>> process. God know what the cause was (for my clyclic redundent errors..
>> But even as a hobbist, I windiff my CD archive right after the CD
>> is burnt. So, as a company delivery software, why would there be
>> no verfification in place?
>>
>>> To be fair, the process was never documented until I came along. And
>>> prior to this incident, no one in the company did any sort of verification.
>> No one blame you. So, "to be fair" should be addressed between your
>> company and the customers. It is only fair for your company to pay
>> some sort of panelty w.r.t. the customers who have sufferred due to
>> the faiult of your company.
>>
>>> The company's already admitted fault for not having a better process in
>>> place at the time. (The original CD was created over a year ago.)
>>> But as I said, the regulator doing the investigation insists on an
>>> explanation.
>> If I were you, I would try to "simulate" a faulty CD burning on a
>> PC similar to the one which the fault was created a year ago.
>> Say, use Roxio to burn a sample of the source codes over and over again,
>> 500 times, 1000 times maybe, and hofully creating a faulty CD as the one
>> held by the regulator. Maybe burning 1000 CD's, and find out that there
>> may exist one or more CD's having cyclic redundent error, just to
>> "explain" to the regulator that CD burning is not 100% error proof.
>> And due to lock of verification process a year ago, such faulty CD
>> was leaked out of your company.
>>
>> A good CD will become bad (as your symtom description) by storage for
>> a year ? I don't believe it.
>> I have CD's burnt 3 years ago and I could still retrieve data from my
>> archieves I windiff'ed the majority of them whenever I created them,
>> except for movies copies.
>
> Without seeing a disk if is very difficult to speculate the reason for
> failure. It appears that it may be a logical failure, rather than
> physical, as files can be read, but the incorrect data is restored -
> ie a mixture of two files.
>
> You say that 2/3 of your files have problems in WinDiff. Does this
> mean that 1/3 of your files are 100% correct, or on each file 1/3 of
> the file incorrect.
>
> If 1/3 are correct, are they in a specific area of the disk, and has
> the disk been appnded to?
>
> As you only have the copy, it is difficult to know how accurate it is.
>
> I have just looked through my recovery notes and once I had a NTFS
> hard drive where many sectors had been shifted by just 36 bytes. On
> this basis, it is possible that the original hard drive had the
> problem and there is nothing wrong with your CD. I have also had
> memory chips (FAT16) where areas of data have been shifted. Camera
> chips often have very odd, unexplained problems. Recovery is normally
> possible by taking an image of the media and inserting or cutting to
> get sectors back to the correct location.
>
>
> Michael
> www.cnwrecovery.com
Michael,
Interesting stuff. Thanks for contributing.
It's a bit of a moot point now. Had a phone conference with the
regulators on Monday and finally convinced them that the CD really was
corrupted and that our company wasn't trying anything shifty. The
incident is considered closed now. (Thank goodness--I was really
sweating it there for awhile. I'm willing to own up to my own mistakes,
but it always makes me nervous when I have to explain other people's
failings.)
> It's a bit of a moot point now. Had a phone conference with the
> regulators on Monday and finally convinced them that the CD really was
> corrupted and that our company wasn't trying anything shifty.
Re: Trying to explain cause of CD corruption 
Linear Mode
