Negative. Ghost is as capapble of making a bitwise copy of a drive (one of two modes it has) as is dd in *NIX. It is perfectly admissable in all courts I know, as long as it is done quickly after compromise. Standard procedure (as little as there is standard in this young but quickly maturing field) dictates you make an immediate initial dd copy for the court. Then make as many working dd's as neccessary for forensics.
Curt Purdy CISSP, GSEC, MCSE+I, CNE, CCDA Senior Systems Engineer Information Security Engineer DP Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED] 936.637.7977 ext. 121 ---------------------------------------- If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What's more, you deserve to be hacked. -- White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 9:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [inbox] 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, > 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. _______________________________________________ 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
