Shred-Only to Smart Disposition, A Better Approach to IT Asset Security

If your team currently wipes devices, pulls hard drives, and shreds them on-site, this is not a criticism piece. We understand why that process exists, and honestly, in a lot of organizations it makes total sense.

There is a real peace of mind that comes from seeing a hard drive physically destroyed. You can watch it happen. You can point to the result. It feels final, and that matters to IT, security, compliance, and leadership teams who are trying to reduce risk. That part is real, and it should be acknowledged.

What is also real is this: the overall security of a disposition program is not only about the final step. It is about how well the full process flows from start to finish. That is where a lot of companies are starting to rethink a “shred everything” approach, especially now that hardware costs have risen and usable equipment has more resale and redeployment value than it did in softer markets.

The Goal Is Not to Attack Internal IT Teams

Most internal teams are doing the best they can with the time and resources they have.

In many environments, disposal is only one part of someone’s role. The same people handling decommissions may also be supporting users, managing tickets, working refresh projects, helping with deployments, and putting out fires all day. So this is not about saying internal teams are careless or non-compliant.

It is about recognizing that even a good team can run into risk if the process depends too much on manual steps, tribal knowledge, or inconsistent handoffs. That is usually where exposure shows up. Not because someone had bad intentions, but because the process itself had pressure points.

Where Liability Can Creep In, Even with a Good Intentional Process

A company can absolutely have a legitimate wipe/pull/shred process and still create risk if the workflow is not tight. Some common examples:

1) Inconsistent execution from person to person

One tech follows one process, another uses a different checklist, another handles exceptions “later.” Over time, that creates variation.

When data-bearing assets are involved, variation is risk.

2) Weak asset-to-drive traceability

A team may know a batch of drives was destroyed, but can they prove exactly which drive serials were tied to which assets, users, or departments?

If there is an audit, legal request, or internal review, that gap becomes a problem quickly.

3) Chain-of-custody gaps during drive pull workflows

Pulling drives can be a solid control, but it also adds handoffs:

• device staged
• drive removed
• drive containerized
• container stored
• container moved
• shred event completed

Every handoff is another place where documentation and accountability matter.

4) Exceptions are handled manually

What happens when a drive fails a wipe, is damaged, is missing, or cannot be processed the normal way? If there is no clear exception path, teams tend to improvise. That is usually where audit findings start.

5) Overusing shredding as the default

Shredding can be the right answer for many assets. No question.

But sometimes it becomes the default because it feels easiest and most final, even when a secure sanitization and reuse path may have been allowed and better for the business. That can create a different kind of liability, not always legal, but financial and operational:

• lost recovery value
• unnecessary replacement spend
• reduced flexibility on refresh cycles
• missed redeployment opportunities

Why This Conversation Matters More Right Now

This is not just a compliance conversation anymore. It is a budget conversation too.

IBM’s 2024 Cost of a Data Breach report put the global average breach cost at $4.88 million, up from $4.45 million the year prior, which is one reason organizations are scrutinizing security controls and documentation more closely.

At the same time, many organizations are dealing with higher hardware replacement costs and tighter budgets. That means every device that can be securely sanitized and reused or resold, when policy allows, is worth a second look. So the question becomes: How do you maintain security confidence while also making smarter decisions about asset value?

Why Physical Shredding Feels Safer, And Why That Feeling Is Valid

It is worth saying out loud because this is where many blogs get too one-sided. If you physically see a drive shredded, there is a very understandable sense of certainty. You watched the media get destroyed. That visual confirmation creates confidence in a way a report or certificate does not.

Sanitization is different. You do not see the data disappear. You trust the process, the controls, the validation, the records, and the audit trail. That is exactly why audit discipline matters so much in a sanitization and reuse program. With shredding, confidence is often visual. With sanitization and reuse, confidence comes from process proof.

Neither approach is automatically “better” in every situation. It depends on the asset, the requirements, and how strong the process is.

What We Bring to the Table, Audit-Backed Confidence

Where we can help is not by arguing that internal teams are wrong. We help by bringing a process that puts IT asset security at the helm, and is built to hold up under scrutiny. We run internal audits, bring in third-party auditors, welcome customer auditors, and maintain NAID audit standards. That audit structure is a major part of how we keep our process at 100% accuracy.

That means the confidence does not come from a sales claim. It comes from a repeatable process that is consistently reviewed and validated. For organizations that are open to alternatives, this creates a path to:

• maintain security standards
• improve documentation and traceability
• reduce burden on internal IT teams
• preserve value through resale
• support redeployment when allowed

“Shred Everything” vs “Use the Right Method for the Right Asset”

This is the mindset shift that can make a big difference. The goal is not to push reuse where it does not belong. The goal is not to talk anyone out of shredding when shredding is the right call. The goal is to apply the right method to the right asset, inside a process that is secure, documented, and auditable. That may mean:

• shred certain media immediately
• sanitize and resell devices that meet policy and condition requirements
• redeploy machines internally when allowed
• maintain clear records for every disposition decision

When companies move to this model, they are not lowering the bar on security. They are raising the bar on process quality.

Why Resale and Redeployment Matter More Than They Used To

A few years ago, some companies could afford to be less strategic with end-of-life hardware. That is a lot harder to justify today. When the market for hardware is tight and replacement costs rise, organizations have more incentive to:

• extend useful life where appropriate
• redeploy viable machines to other users/locations
• recover value through resale
• avoid destroying assets that still have legitimate use

This is especially important for organizations managing large fleets, refresh cycles, and mixed environments where some devices are no longer ideal for one user group, but still perfectly useful for another. That is where a secure, audit-backed sanitization process can create real business value, not just compliance value.

Documentation Matters More Than Most Teams Think

One point that often gets overlooked is that strong technical handling is only half the story. The other half is proof.

NIST’s media sanitization guidance includes a sample Certificate of Sanitization format for documenting an organization’s sanitization activities, which reflects how important formal documentation is to a defensible process. In practice, the strongest programs can answer questions like:

• What happened to this specific asset?
• Which drive was in it?
• What method was used?
• When was it processed?
• Who handled it?
• What was the verification result?
• Was it shredded, sanitized, resold, or redeployed?
• Can we produce records quickly if asked?

That level of documentation is what helps organizations feel confident even when they are not physically watching every drive get destroyed.

Final Thought

We respect the wipe/pull/shred approach because we understand exactly why teams use it.

What we are saying is that there may be another option for some assets, and in some environments it can be just as secure, or even safer from a process-control standpoint, depending on how well the workflow is designed and audited.

With the right controls in place, organizations do not always have to choose between IT asset security and value. They can protect data, stay audit-ready, resell devices into a strong market when appropriate, and redeploy machines when allowed. That is the real opportunity, building a disposition program that is secure, defensible, and practical for the business.