ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


IT Jobs

Security threats Toolkit

Expert undermines hacking suspect's defence

Munir Kotadia ZDNet.co.uk

Published: 09 Oct 2003 15:10 BST

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

An expert witness in the case of a teenager accused of accidentally launching a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on a major US port said on Thursday there was no indication that evidence had been planted on the suspect's hard drive.

The defence counsel for Aaron Caffrey, who is on trial at Southwark Crown Court, had said that his client's computer could have been compromised by a hacker who had altered the system's log files -- which record how the machine is being used -- and staged an attack from the teenager's computer.

But Professor Neil Barrett, technical director at Information Risk Management and an expert witness at the trial, told the court that after examining the physical location of data blocks on Caffrey's computer, there was no evidence that the log files had been altered at a later date.

"If you edit a file after you finish writing it to disk, it results in block fractures. The block that corresponds to the edited text would be written elsewhere. The disk blocks that correspond to this file show no evidence of fracturing and were sandwiched between files that were created before and after it," Barrett told the court.

Barrett conceded that a hacker could, in theory, have planted a different log file on Caffrey's computer, but said it would be obvious that it was inserted later because of the physical position of the file's data blocks. "There is obviously a way of introducing (the file) on the computer, but not in the correct place," he said.

Caffrey's counsel questioned the validity of Barrett's evidence because the witness had not physically examined the actual hard disk from Caffrey's computer, but an image of it that was sent to him on CD-ROM. Barrett argued that this did not make a difference because the image was "forensically sound".

The case continues.

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly Print with HP

Did you find this article useful?
64 out of 113 people found this useful



Company/Topic Alerts

Create a new alert from the list below:









Related Jobs

TEST PLANNING ENGINEER / TESTING ENGINEER - West London

The Test Planning Engineer is responsible for the development of system level test plans and test procedures, including: - Developing and documenting ...

Oracle Technical Architect

The Oracle technical architect is responsible for architecting the physical components of the database, hardware, and network in support of the ...

Investment Bank, Business Analyst, Metals, City

Knowledge of paper trades will be sufficient, but additional knowledge of physical trades will be considered even more attractive. This represents a ...

Sentry Posts Blog

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Busines...

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Business Apps? Author: Eric Everson, MyMobiSafe.com As mobile Linux is carving it’s footprint on the future of mobile application development, the... More

Post a comment

DWP downplays security breach

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that some of its staff have been forwarding passwords with password protected material. An email that was leaked on the 'Dizzy... More

Post a comment

How many headshots does one chairperso...

We got a strange request last week from the head of PR from Russian security experts Kaspersky. It seems although the company was very happy with the interview we recently carried with... More

Post a comment

Featured Talkback

On the contrary, if vendors were forced to stand behind their products it should increase innovation. It would force more, and better , testing before hitting the sales floor, resulting in fewer updates and less downtime for the consumer. At present the EULA removes responsibility from the vendor, and moves it to the user, which is a step backward. Make the vendor responsibility for their code.

By: ator1940

Read full story:
RSA: Vendor liability may stifle innovation