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]

Message-ID: <BAY1-DAV361KQ1gFHK2000171d0@hotmail.com>
From: SecuresDotComs at hotmail.com (SecuresDotComs)
Subject: Reacting to a server compromise

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@...imus.com.au>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.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@...imus.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
>