Start with outcomes, not tools
Wiping and shredding are methods. What policies usually specify are outcomes. That’s why NIST SP 800-88 is referenced so often: it maps methods to outcomes (Clear / Purge / Destroy) and emphasizes verification.
Secure wiping (what it does well)
Verified wiping can support reuse and remarketing while still meeting many policy requirements. When teams choose wiping, they typically care about:
- Verification that the sanitization completed successfully
- Documentation that can be tied back to a device record
- A custody story that explains where the device was and who had access
Physical destruction (why policies require it)
Destruction is often mandated when a policy requires a Destroy outcome, when media condition is unreliable, or when the cost of being wrong is unacceptable. Destruction also reduces ambiguity: a destroyed drive is not going back into circulation.
Where factory reset fits (and where it doesn’t)
Factory reset is a usability feature. It can be part of a workflow, but it is not a substitute for verified sanitization. If you want the practical reasons, read why factory reset is insufficient.
Chain of custody matters for both
Even the best wiping or destruction method doesn’t help if custody is unclear. Programs reduce risk by keeping a consistent handoff story from pickup through processing and documentation.
Related service page
For the operational overview of how we handle wiping and destruction, see hard drive destruction & wiping.