RE: [logs] Data for Court

From: Bill Spernow (bill.spernowat_private)
Date: Sun Dec 16 2001 - 16:49:20 PST

  • Next message: Frank Solomon: "Re: [logs] syslog & Win2k?"

    I am a little late to this discussion, so forgive me if I am restating
    previous issues, but given I have had some practical experience in this
    arena, and have trained well over 3,000 cops worldwide on cyber
    investigative techniques, let me add:
    
    (1)  Any log data that can be printed out can be successfully introduced as
    evidence in a US court trial (assuming the Attorney is competent).
    
    (2)  Any log maintained in the "normal course of business" falls under the
    hearsay exception and can easily be admitted into evidence.
    
    (3)  Any log evidence that is created/acquired as a "result" of an
    investigation into the source of a compromise can be challenged, but (as
    mentioned) if there no indications that the original document/log file
    created (or a true and accurate copy) was not tampered with, then it will be
    difficult from keeping it being introduced as evidence.
    
    (4)  Most challenges to any forensic computer data pivot on the chain of
    custody and the methodology used to gather/discover it, as opposed to the
    original data itself.
    
    Until then...
    
    Bill Spernow, CISSP
    Chief Information Security Officer
    Georgia Student Finance Commission
    (w) 770-724-9328   (f) 770-724-9004
    cisoat_private (business)
    bill.spernowat_private (personal)
    
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: jamie rishaw [mailto:jrishawat_private]
    Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 4:13 PM
    To: Tina Bird
    Cc: Log Analysis Mailing List
    Subject: Re: [logs] Data for Court
    
    
    On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 04:11:13AM -0600, Tina Bird wrote:
    > Hi all -- I've spent some of my time on airplanes reading
    > the US Dept. of Justice report on Evidence Quality Computer
    > Data (the link is on the Web site).  I won't go into great
    > detail (I'm >loving< European central heating), but the thing
    > I found the most interesting is that, despite all the great
    > discussions about how easy it is to modify log data,
    > >unless< there's reasonable proof that logs have been
    > modified, they can be admitted as evidence.
    >
    > Even better, they're generally held to be reliable evidence
    > if the business submitting them collects them as part of
    > normal practice and relies upon their information for its
    > day-to-day activity.
    
    Exactly.
    
    What's important (from what I'm learning from @Stake, an imho great
    security organization) is that the company has what's recognized as a
    baseline of what's "normal".
    
    One @stake staffer wrote to me in an e-mail on this exact topic:
    
    --snip--
    The first goal any conscious
    security professional should achieve is a aperture database. An aperture
    into your technical and corporate environment, that is captured by a matrix
    of what a corporation has and the "cause" (function) vs. "reaction"  for
    each of the respective assets.  In doing so one has established a baseline
    for what normal is. On a network, a high level example would be ...2
    exchange mail servers : pop mail protocol (110) , internal and external
    uses. For auditing purposes, one can accumulate 12 months of logs filtered
    on the mail server that outline only port 110 was used from the following
    internal IP addresses over the course of the last year. As you have defined
    what is normal, then justified the statement with substantial evidence
    (time stamped logs that were protected and uncorrupted {the security
    measure put in place to protect the logging server was ample}), now when an
    incident happens and one is scrubbing through sanitized data and isolates
    an invalid IP address that accessed the mail server on port 22 at the same
    time that your router's logs, firewalls, etc...noticed anomalies compared
    to your aperture...the information is painted in a different light.
    --snip--
    
    Hope this helps a little.
    
    jamie
    
    --
    jamie rishaw <jamieat_private>
    sr. wan/unix engineer/ninja // playboy enterprises inc.
    [opinions stated are mine, and are not necessarily those of the bunny]
    
    "UNIX was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because
     that would also stop them from doing clever things." -- Doug Gwyn
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 : Mon Dec 17 2001 - 10:48:44 PST