Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Re: Reacting to a server compromise


From: manohar singh <seclistaddress () yahoo com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 05:01:15 -0700 (PDT)

This is going off topic, but I'll still reply.

Server Logs, provided their integrity is maintained
are admissible as evidence in the US, most countries
in Europe, as well as Asia by now. The fact that the
integrity of the logs is proven is left upto the
maintainer of the logs, as is the authenticity of
these transactions. 

In simple english, the probability that these logs can
be doctored, hacked, content be mislead is definitely
there. But this does not rule out the usage of these
as evidence.

Stating that logs must not be used or presented as
evidence is presenting a very narrow view, and is
definitely not an acceptible stand.

Company policy must define a process by which the Law
Enforcement agencies must be contacted, and this must
be understood by both parties well in advances (read:
not enacted after an incident occurs).

In this case, I would have contacted the affected
parties directly, and gained the goodwill and
understanding before waiting for a summons.

but then hey, this is just my two cents.

sincerely,
!



--- morning_wood <se_cur_ity () hotmail com> wrote:
we could start adding your ip to our headers, log,
and use that as evidence
against you, ok "Jenn"
logs can be originally faked, before the data
reaches the logging device.
sorry, IMHO server logs etc, should clearly  not be
admissable.
if I recall didnt thet actually have to catch
"Kevin" "in the act" so to
speak? Contrary to popular belief server logs are
not like a video tape as
evidence , and i think that is what the"popular"
belief is about logs. this
topic was once brought up by me and i got bl;asted
as this is not the
proper forum for this discussion, but yet my wood
spoke now didnt it?

Donnie "sometimes the XSS King" Werner
http://e2-labs.com
http://www.exploitlabs.com





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jennifer Bradley" <jenbradley () webmail co za>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Full-disclosure] Reacting to a
server compromise


On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 12:31:39 +1000 
(devnull () iprimus com au) wrote:

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 01:38 am, Jennifer Bradley
wrote:

If this happens again, I would probably make a
copy of the hard
drive,
or at the very least the log files since they
can be entered as
evidence of a hacked box.

Under most jurisdictions, an ordinary disk image
produced by Norton
Ghost etc
using standard hardware is completely
inadmissible in court, as it is
impossible to make one without possibly
compromising the integrity of
the
evidence. The police etc use specialised hardware
for making such
copies,
which ensures that the disk can't have been
altered.

This is not true, at least in the US.  Log files
can be entered into
evidence unless you can prove that the log files
have been tampered
with.  The "possibility" of changing data does not
make evidence
inadmissible, only proof that data has been
changed.

I don't see why a Norton Ghost image is any
different than a tape
backup, and backups have been regularly entered in
as evidence in many
famous cases, such as the Microsoft anti-trust
case.

jb


_______________________________________________________________________
LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD - WWW.HEALTHIEST.CO.ZA

Cool Connection, Cool Price, Internet Access for
R59 monthly @ WebMail
http://www.webmail.co.za/dialup/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: