Re: [logs] Due Diligence for Admission in Court

From: Chris M. Lonvick (clonvickat_private)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 07:35:25 PST

  • Next message: Dan Rowles: "Re: [logs] Due Diligence for Admission in Court"

    Hi Tina and All,
    
    This ID from the GRIP WG has been accepted as a BCP.
      http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grip-prot-evidence-05.txt
    It seems broad enough to cover any legal system but
    I don't know if it has been reviewed by any lawyers
    or judges of any country.
    
    Hope this helps,
    Chris
    
    At 08:34 PM 12/3/2001 -0600, Tina Bird wrote:
    >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
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private
    For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 09:56:27 PST