> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Curt Purdy > Sent: Wednesday, 6 August 2003 1:28 p.m. > To: 'Michal Zalewski' > Cc: 'Jennifer Bradley'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
