RE: [inbox] Re: Reacting to a server compromise

["Bojan Zdrnja" <Bojan.Zdrnja () LSS hr>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Curt Purdy
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 August 2003 1:28 p.m.
> To: 'Michal Zalewski'
> Cc: 'Jennifer Bradley'; full-disclosure () lists 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

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html