On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Curt Purdy wrote: > 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.
[...] On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's kind of hard to replace sheet 1,487 from a box of fanfold paper. :) That's different. You're suddenly introducing certain additional circumstances that render the approach more reliable. However, I was arguing only with the original statement that claimed that logs on read-write media are not admissable in the court, whereas read-only media is. Period. Once again, IANAL, maybe that is the case, although it is contrary to what I've heard. I don't believe that would be reasonable. I don't think there's an essential difference between storing logs on, say, cd-r as opposed to cd-rw or magnetic tapes (or even a trusted monitoring system, in some cases), as long as the material is handled the same way and there is no integrity protection - be it the relative difficulty of replacing a single sheet in a bulk amount of fanfold paper, yes, or some cryptographic signatures on every recorded CD that are backed by a trusted hardware and OS. *If* there is a difference in how the media is handled, or if there is a physical or cryptographical method of ensuring the integrity and authenticity of every piece, it would be different, I'm not arguing with that. -- ------------------------- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: -- Michal Zalewski * [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx] Did you know that clones never use mirrors? --------------------------- 2003-08-06 09:57 -- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html