Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Reacting to a server compromise
From: "James A. Cox" <computer () jacox net>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:06:31 -0500
I've never heard of a rule that prohibits the introduction in evidence of Norton Ghost images or any other electronic evidence. In most places in the US, I think, there wouldn't be any hard and fast rules; it would be up to the judge to decide whether the evidence was reliable enough.
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Reacting to a server compromise, (continued)
- Re: Reacting to a server compromise David Hayes (Aug 05)
- Re: Reacting to a server compromise Ron DuFresne (Aug 05)
- Re: Hard drive images Craig Pratt (Aug 05)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Hard drive images Curt Purdy (Aug 05)
- Re: Hard drive images ldreamer (Aug 05)
- Re: Hard drive images madsaxon (Aug 05)
- Re: Reacting to a server compromise David Hayes (Aug 05)
- Re: Re: Reacting to a server compromise morning_wood (Aug 03)
- Re: Re: Reacting to a server compromise manohar singh (Aug 03)
- Re: Reacting to a server compromise James A. Cox (Aug 03)
- Re: Re: Reacting to a server compromise Frank Bruzzaniti (Aug 04)
- RE: Re: Reacting to a server compromise Ron DuFresne (Aug 04)
- RE: Re: Reacting to a server compromise security snot (Aug 04)
- SV: Re: Reacting to a server compromise martin scherer (Aug 04)
- RE: Re: Reacting to a server compromise madsaxon (Aug 04)
- Re: Re: Reacting to a server compromise Darren Reed (Aug 04)