Skip to content
Media
ASD ISMISM-1727

ASD ISM 1727 Methods for destroying semiconductor memory

What it says

Semiconductor memory is destroyed using a furnace/incinerator, hammer mill or disintegrator.

Quoted as published. Everything else on this page is written by Control Stack.

What it means

In plain English

Specialised equipment like a furnace or hammer mill is used to destroy semiconductor memory to ensure security.

This control is about making sure that when you don't need your computer memory chips anymore, they're completely destroyed. If you don't do this properly, confidential data could be recovered by someone else later, posing a risk to your privacy and security.

Why it matters

Failure to physically destroy semiconductor memory can allow data recovery from chips, leading to leakage of sensitive information and compromise.

How to implement

  1. IT team members should gather old or broken semiconductor memory from computers or devices that are no longer in use.

    Collect them in a secure location to prevent loss or theft before destruction.

  2. The IT manager should choose an appropriate method for destruction based on available resources.

    This might involve finding a local company with a furnace that can securely incinerate the memory chips.

  3. Procurement should ensure any third-party service providers used for destruction are reputable and follow security protocols, such as having necessary certifications.

    Check references and industry standards before making a decision.

  4. Facilities management should coordinate the physical transportation of semiconductor memory to the destruction site.

    Ensure the transport is secure by using a sealed and tracked container.

  5. Once the memory is destroyed, IT or an authorised third party should document the process with photos or a certificate.

    This documentation should include date and method of destruction for records.

Keep it running

Regularly verify furnaces/incinerators, hammer mills or disintegrators meet required destruction outcomes, and record device IDs and destruction logs for audit.

Evidence and audit

  1. Check 1 of 5What an auditor asks for

    Ask for

    Transportation records of semiconductor memory: Request documents or logs showing how the memory was transported to the destruction site.

    Look at

    The transport method details and security measures described.

    Good evidence

    Includes secure transport logs with dates and responsible parties clearly listed.

  2. Check 2 of 5What an auditor asks for

    Ask for

    Contracts with destruction service providers: Request to see the contracts that outline agreements with external companies that destroy memory for you.

    Look at

    Clauses detailing security measures and compliance.

    Good evidence

    Shows a signed agreement that mentions adherence to current security standards.

  3. Check 3 of 5What an auditor asks for

    Ask for

    Certificates or reports showing the destruction of memory.

    Look at

    The document details such as dates, quantities, and methods used.

    Good evidence

    Includes certificates that are specific and signed by the service provider.

  4. Check 4 of 5What an auditor asks for

    Ask for

    To see the procedure for memory destruction: Request the documented policy or procedure your organisation uses for this process.

    Look at

    Clear steps on how to collect, transport, and destroy memory securely.

    Good evidence

    Provides a detailed, step-by-step procedure with defined roles.

  5. Check 5 of 5What an auditor asks for

    Ask for

    Incident reports related to memory disposal: Request any records of security incidents connected to memory disposal issues.

    Look at

    Details on incidents and their resolutions.

    Good evidence

    Shows a low number of incidents with swift, documented responses.

Mappings

Closest match in ISO/IEC 27001: A.7.10, Secure management of storage media, which this control partially meets.

ISO 27001

ISO/IEC 27001: 2 mappings

Mappings show how controls relate across frameworks. They do not imply full equivalence or certification.