On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 12:31:39 +1000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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
