Re: Reacting to a server compromise

["SecuresDotComs" <SecuresDotComs () hotmail com>]

Oooo I never thought of that. Anybody have a pointer to more relevant legal
response information than what I plagiarized and bastardized?

Intrusion Detection and the Law for the Net/Sys Admin 101?

SDC

----- Original Message -----
From: <devnull () iprimus com au>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Reacting to a server compromise


> 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,

Then Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:33 PM  devnull () iprimus com au responded:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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