[logs] Due Diligence for Admission in Court

From: Tina Bird (tbird@precision-guesswork.com)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 18:34:24 PST

  • Next message: Steve Wray: "RE: [logs] log analysis of netfilter entries?"

    Pardon me for re-opening this can of worms.
    
    Did we ever come to a consensus, or a pseudo-consensus,
    on due diligence for computer logs as evidentiary
    quality data?  
    
    What makes a judge unlikely to admit my logs as evidence?
    - unauthenticated data sources ("anyone can write to this 
    datastream, therefore none of it is reliable")
    - lack of time synchronization
    - long term storage that is not tamper-proof
    - no strategy for dealing with all the data once it's collected
    
    I would propose -- for your non-existent
    Joe Average corporate network (I expect there to be
    heated discussion - please tell me where I'm totally
    off base) (and of course bearing in mind that this 
    isn't infallible, it's just as good as the "court" can
    expect a "diligent" network or system administrator to
    do):
    
    1) can't enforce secure transmission protocols throughout
    the network, because standards aren't sufficiently 
    evolved -- so standard syslog, SNMP, SMTP are okay for
    transport protocols.  (although see #3 below)
    2) central loghost with NTP or other time synchronization 
    throughout the network -- use ongoing record of process
    IDs on logging machines to verify reasonable expectation
    that a particular log message came from a given machine
    (does that make sense?  I know what I mean...)
    3) access control enforced at loghost that limits which
    machines can log -- help reduce likelihood of spoofed
    traffic -- or implement other transports altogether, like
    the serial cable mechanism we've discussed
    4) loghost is of course totally locked down, SSH only
    access, or console only access, and dumps logs to
    write-once archive format on regular basis
    5) log review and reduction strategy -- anyone want to 
    take a stab?  since presumably part of showing that the
    data is reliable is showing that I've thought about how
    I should process it.  
    6) minimum list of machines on that non-existent typical
    network that I should be required to monitor to be
    credible?
    
    Things have been awfully quiet out here lately...
    
    cheers -- tbird
    
    "I was being patient, but it took too long." - 
                                    Anya, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
    
    Log Analysis: http://www.counterpane.com/log-analysis.html
    VPN:  http://kubarb.phsx.ukans.edu/~tbird/vpn.html
    
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private
    For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 03 2001 - 19:49:22 PST