full-disclosure - Reacting to a server compromise

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: seclistaddress at yahoo.com (manohar singh)
Subject: Reacting to a server compromise

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@...mail.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@...mail.co.za>
> To: <full-disclosure@...ts.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@...imus.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