full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: 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: <001801c35bfa$388aadb0$0200a8c0@bzdrnja>
From: Bojan.Zdrnja at LSS.hr (Bojan Zdrnja)
Subject: [inbox] Re: Reacting to a server compromise


> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of 
> Curt Purdy
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 August 2003 1:28 p.m.
> To: 'Michal Zalewski'
> Cc: 'Jennifer Bradley'; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Reacting to a 
> server compromise
> 
> 
> The key here is to have the paper handled by only one person and witnessed
> by another and the access to that paper by only that person.  Therefore
the
> validity of the printouts are as sound as that person.  As long as that
> person can not be repudiated, neither can the printouts.
> 
> That is also applicable to the optical media we now use, with one person
> responsible for handling and storage with a reliable witness.

Yep, (warning: IANAL), logs are usually categorized as hearsay evidence (3rd
party) - meaning they are not generally admissible in court, because you
can't prove they are accurate and reliable.
But, if you take additional steps, there are exceptions for hearsay
evidence: if logs are made during the regular conduct of business and
authenticated by witness familiar with their use, they can be admissible.

Regards,

Bojan Zdrnja