Slashdot Mirror
WinXP and WinAmp Vulnerable to Malicious MP3s
mypenwry writes "Foundstone, a Mission Viejo, CA security
services company, is reporting several vulnerabilities that would allow malicious
code embedded in MP3 and WMA files to be executed via WinXP and WinAmp. WinAmp
versions 2.81 and 3.0 are vulnerable
to buffer overflows via certain long ID3v2 tags when MP3 files are loaded.
More troubling is the WinXP
vulnerability: A buffer overflow exists in Explorer's automatic reading
of MP3 or WMA (Windows Media Audio) file attributes in Windows XP. An attacker
could create a malicious MP3 or WMA file, that if placed in an accessed folder
on a Windows XP system, would compromise the system and allow for remote code
execution. The MP3 does not need to be played, it simply needs to be stored in
a folder that is browsed to, such as an MP3 download folder, the desktop, or a
NetBIOS share. This vulnerability is also exploitable via Internet Explorer by
loading a malicious web site. Explorer automatically reads file attributes regardless
of whether or not the user actually highlights, clicks on, reads, or opens the
file. Windows XP's Explorer will overflow if corrupted attributes exist within
the MP3 or WMA file. Microsoft
has issued a fix for this vulnerability. Nullsoft has posted fixed version of WinAmp 2.81 and 3.0 on their web site."
I hope no one tells the RIAA about this. They will be putting landmines in P2P soon.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
This is all part of the Berman Bill.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
So, now when the users are afraid because of having virii in their mp3s, they are not stupid anymore?
looks like listening to the newest Britney Spears album will result in more than just bad taste.
Mike
Why hasn't Microsoft just changed the way it handles buffers to eliminate the weekly discovery of yet another buffer overflow exploit that compromises security? It's obvious to just about everyone else that any buffer that doesn't ignore excessive input will be a problem in the future - why does Microsoft insist on treating each one of these issues as though it was a totally new problem instead of making a global change to secure the OS from this kind of hack?
Click the Windows Update button and reboot and you're fixed. Or if you're like many people, the fix has already installed during an automatic update check last night. This isn't really news unless Slashdot is merging with Bugtraq (Slashtraq? Bugdot?). Are we just posting this to bash Microsoft once again? Automatic updates were one of the best new features they added to Windows and they make life much easier. Oh and no, I don't wrap tinfoil around my head worrying whether Microsoft is going to invade my PC and lock me out of it.
we see a worm exploiting this, remember the last worm that was executed without even opening a file.
You guys are all supposed to be using Ogg anyways! That way you can act like you are a snooty audiophile anytime a MP3 story is posted...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
From Microsoft:
An attacker might attempt to exploit this in one of three ways:
* Host the file on a website. In this case, if a user were browsing the page containing the file and hovered over it with his or her mouse, the vulnerability could be exploited.
Eep!
* Host the file on a network share. In this case, if a user browsed to the network share and simply opened the folder which contained the file, it could cause the vulnerability to be exploited.
Gaah!
Also, it seems you can send an e-mail with the mp3 object in a frame (this is the third way of exploiting it) so you don't even need to click a link in Outlook / OE for it to be run. This shouldn't be possible on XP SP1 or a recently patched IE though.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That average person does not notice when a backdoor app is covertly installed on their machine. As long as the mp3 is actually what they wanted, chances are they will keep sharing it.
The even more dangerous part is that someone could be downloading mp3s and LOOKING for these trojans. And as soon as they find one, they can just go back to the IP of the machine they got the file from and have an instant DDOS zombie!
Or even better, if I am an RIAA employed disturber-of-the-peace, I could create a bunch of these trojaned mp3s share them, and then whenever someone downloads it from my machine I could instantly use the backdoor to destroy their music collection. (But I'm sure the RIAA has already thought of that.)
All file formats are safe, it's just the programs that read them.
Oh, just kidding. :)
:)
I would like to ask for factually-based opinions whether these innumerable highly dangerous security holes in MS software are more the result of the ingenuity of the hackers or the incompetence of the Microsoft design and testing process, or about 50:50. I am inclined to be prejudiced against Microsoft, so I would be REALLY interested in hearing reasoned defenses of their predicament, if such exist.
So, please, no MICROSOFT RULZ!!! or MICROSOFT SUX!!! I'm not asking for a vote.
Microsoft provides the #1 small-system OS, for better or worse, which means Windows will immediately be the hot target for black-hat types intent on spreading misery or demonstrating their hatred for the leviathan.
I know, too, that half the problem has been MS's arguably foolhardy decisions in adding dubious extensions to their software, like default enabling scripting in Outlook and macros in Word. But I'm kind of curious about the mistakes in doing their core work, like handling MP3's.
Last, I have trouble understanding how so many of these bugs come from a company with many of the brightest programmers. Is it a largely problem of scale and bureaucracy?
Share your concise insightful informative nonprofane fact-based reactions from experience?
Nullsoft has posted fixed version of WinAmp 2.81 and 3.0 on their web site."
Is there a reason they haven't released a new version with the bugfix instead of just uploading a new copy with the _same release number and date_? Both versions are listed as released in early or middle August, and there's no bugfixes listed anywhere on the site in regards to this. Site. Are they trying to hide that it's been fixed, or just don't want anyone to figure it out?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
It can't be denied any longer. Back in the day the poor virus writer had to rely on his victims to carry the payload through meatspace on floppies.
M$ has been continually improving virus transmission methods, and now you might be infected just by moving your mouse.
But do we really need to worry? After all, how many kiddies are out there bragging that they '@dm1n1str@t0r3d' someone's XP box. No, it's just not as sexy as r00t3d.
I don't think so. I know people who download a lot of stuff, and if you have it set up to download 100 MP3s overnight, your system could be compromised by morning. Are you going to listen to those 100 MP3s first thing in the morning?
The kicker is that the odds you get compromised go up greatly if someone seeds Kazaa, or even a web page, with an infected MP3 file. They can see who is downloading it so they know the IP to attack. On a web page, they could get your IP out of the logs. I never thought an MP3 file would leave a system vulnerable, but I guess that is why this is a pretty scary vulnerability - nobody else would either.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I was sent and installed the fix before I read about the vulnerability.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Tools->Folder Options
set Web View to "Use Windows Classic Folders"
I've always done this, having never trusted 'web content' in any folder I browse to (nor needing the extra overhead it causes drawing thumbnails of bitmaps and whatnot)
I believe any Windows that's upgraded to Media Player 7.1 and/or IE6 would be vulnerable, not just XP?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You're exactly right.
I think what the previous poster is thinking of is ID3v1 tags, which are located at the end of the MP3, so you don't get them until the MP3s finish downloading (and what's more, they have a fixed size so they're easy to check, but that's besides the point)
Now, this bug involves ID3v2 tags. ID3v2 tags are located at that start of the MP3, which is why when you add one to a MP3 playing in Winamp you get a brief pause, it has to add it to the start of the file. Therefore, any MP3 with an ID3v2 tag will already have the potential of compromising you by the time it's downloaded enough to play part of the song if you preview them using Winamp.
I don't know how Explorer checks file attributes on MP3s, but I'm assuming that you're already in danger by this time too.
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
Read the Microsoft Bulletin (which I got yesterday). Opening a shared directory with one of these MP3s in will trigger the attack, or even previewing an email with one of these attached will execute it.
Here's MS own words:
And I thought Nimda was bad.
.eml files anymore. you would just see a new MP3 in your read/write network share with thousands of other MP3's so you would never find it and it would infect all of your MP3's in your read/write network share. Once you open the folder to pick a song it runs and infects all of your mp3's on the PC, then goes out and proceeds to infect every mp3 it can write to on the network that has read/write shares and the process starts all over again while it formats your hard drive 7 days later.
:P
When all of the college students here on campus had read/write shares on the network, Nimda Spread at an alarming rate, Especially since WinXP Home decided that you SHOULD have your Shared Documents folder open for read/write access after running one of those networking wizards.
I could only imagine the hell a Modified Nimda would be if it can now infect mp3 files. It wouldn't even have to spread infected
It's the RIAA Dream come true
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Since you don't manage your own memory on Java or C#, the concept of buffer overflow doesn't really apply. While the array construct still exists in both languages, you can't overflow an array without going out of bounds.
It is critical that the software industry start to adopt VM's for managing applications, especially code that runs on a server. The emergence of a user-mode kernel for Linux is a critical development in this regard, but ultimately it makes more sense to modernize your codebase to Java, C# or any of the interpretive languages that can intercept/manage memory allocation checks for you.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
Search the Web for the classic: Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit.
All you ever wanted to know, and then some...
There's a running joke where I work that it is not officially Thursday until the Microsoft exploit of the week is released (of late this seems to happen on Thursday).
So, why not make it official - I propose
Operation: So Happy It's Thursday
What I recommend is that everybody who finds an exploit in Windows release it on Thursday.
NOTE: be fair - a bug in a Windows APP that is not a part of Windows doesn't count - so the bug in Winamp doesn't count, but the bug in the Windows shell does.
www.eFax.com are spammers
By overflowing a buffer on the stack, it's possible to maliciously change a particular piece of information (the function call return address) to cause the program to jump to a new piece of code: the code you just overflowed the buffer with!
Stack overflow exploits are very common because programmers often declare fixed-length buffers as stack variables and are too lazy to perform proper checking to make sure data never overflows the buffer. This problem in WinAmp is no different than any other buffer overflow, it's just much more severe due to its widespread use.
It's good that I have linux since it **never** has buffer overflows. Nor does any other open source software.
this is not a sig
Snooty audiophiles won't like FLAC, either.
A snooty audiophile sneers at any form of digitization - "You aren't getting all of the music - Yes, I know you are sampling a 1GHz, 64 bits per sample, but you aren't getting all the music! Only analog gets all the music! I don't care that what you are missing wouldn't amount to the width of a hydrogen atom on my beloved LP - YOU AREN'T GETTING ALL THE MUSIC"
That's what a snooty audiophile would say.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Apparently the current underground favorite audio player for Windows is foobar2000, which was written by a former Nullsoft developer (Peter P. aka zZzZzZz). It supports mp3, ogg, ape, flac, mpc, and relevant to the article has abandoned ID3V2 support in favor of APEV2 tags. (And it's been suggested that the source will be released in the near future.) Supposedly the audiophile geeks at hydrogenaudio.org can hear quality improvements over Winamp, although even the developer suggests that it's probably a placebo effect.
Just don't expect too much; it's a very minimalist GUI (what mean these "skinz" of which you speak?), and doesn't support Win9x/NT4.
There's also a support forum for the player.
OK class, has anyone figured this out yet?
Buffer overflows are bad.
It is easy to STOP buffer overflows just by using SAFE strcpy functions that don't blindly copy past the end of a buffer.
Since we've known this for many many years, why do programmers still USE dumb functions that allow buffer overflows?!
Hey Microsoft, since you are spending so much on improving security, I have a hint for you. Print this out and make all your programmers pin it on their cubicles walls:
BAD: strcpy
GOOD: strncpy
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Give me full disclosure...
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
20 Print "Bill Gates laughs as he rolls about with his concubines!"
30 Print "Prepare for judgement!"
40 Input "Press any key";A$
50 If A$="AnyKey" Then fucksomeshitup;
60 W00t: Poke InChest;
70 Run "BSOD.exe -Playfile BritneySpears,HitMeOneMoreTime"
80 Print "This is what it sounds like when doves cry! Bwahaha!"
90 Goto 10
You should be able to find this on SourceForge too.
I don't mean to be a pain in the ass here...but if the code has been patched and rebuilt on a different day shouldn't we at least see a different minor version in the help? I can understand fine at 488 is the code freeze version for the 3.0 release however is a bug has been patched and a new release has been done should this be like 3.01(3.0.1) or 488a just so the its more immediately obvious this is an updated version from the 3.0 I have. If I didn't know about the bug, and I went to the site to see if there is a newer version, I wouldn't get the fixed version cause I still see 3.0! Build dates are meaningless...and even less so if they are not even posted on the download page....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
A buffer overflow means that you take a variable location, such as char songName[255], and put enough data into that buffer to reach into the executable portion of the code in memory. Then, when some function returns, or execution branches, or something loops, part of that data will be at the address of the code that formerly handled the return, branch, or loop, and will get executed as if it were the next instruction.
Any buffer lacking good bounds checking is subject to this.
I wonder if the EULA on the MS patch for this will be overreaching and invasive?
The twitchy part is, even most people who rip their own music these days get the ID tags via some free database site, and those often take submissions. How hard would it be for somebody to just submit a bunch of malicious ID tags for popular albums?
but I really could have done without the mental image you just gave me! Worse than goatse. ugh.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Hint, this code is buggy:
char buf[1024];
strncpy(buf, big_ass_string, sizeof buf);
strncpy doesn't bother adding a null-terminator in the case where big_ass_string is too big. Most people don't realize that they have to do all of this to be safe with strncpy:
strncpy(buf, big_ass_string, sizeof buf - 1);
buf[sizeof buf - 1] = '\0';
The real solution is to use a function that doesn't have such crappy behavior: strlcpy
strlcpy(buf, big_ass_string, sizeof buf);
It always does null-termination. You never have to lie to it about the size of your string. Same goes for strncat (bad) and strlcat (good). Thank the OpenBSD developers for these. They are very useful in avoiding overflows when you don't have the option of using C++ and the string class.
My advisor, DL Mills (the guy who invented NTP), said something a while back which this article somewhat reminds me of. He said that back in the day, people wrote operating systems in assembly. But the thing is, they just got way too f****** big and couldn't be maintained, even with the best of care. He said that today's operating systems are getting to that point as well, and maybe it's time for a new level of abstraction. Stuff like exception handling (amoung which automated buffer checking should be one), garbage collection, etc, should be built into the language, and leave the programmer to concentrate on more important things.
So my question is, does anyone have any idea what this "new level of abstraction" might be?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
All file formats are safe, it's just the programs that read them.
The correct phrasing of that is: File formats don't kill programs. Programs kill programs.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Winamp doesn't belong to MS, so we're probably just warning people.
I'm not sure which is worse:
a) Those that imagine everything MS does is attempt to rule the world
b) Those that imagine every posting mentioning a bug in MS is a covert attack.
Considering the amount of geeks here that are into Mp3's, or those that maintain networks (with users who play downloaded Mp3's, permitted or not), this warning sounds like it fits well on slashdot.
Feeding this to Google produced 11,000 hits, with over half of the first ten being for commercial or academic systems that claim to detect potential buffer overflow code automatically. I doubt any of them is 100% accurate, but even 50% combined with "shut-up-this-code-is-safe" pragmas would be an improvement over the current situation.
Buying or installing one of these tools and running all their source code through it as part of development would cost Microsoft less than they spend on caffeinated liquids, and would pay for itself with the first potential exploit caught before shipment.
I can only ascribe people's refusal to try these tools to programmer hubris - "MY code can't be understood by a mere code analyzer".
I am rashly assuming here that Microsoft doesn't use tools like this. If anyone out there knows differently, please reply.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I don't wear the tinfoil hats either, but I find it a little unnerving that people let their system be updated automatically. There's just so many things wrong with that concept. Some updates I don't want, others I defintiely do. All of them I want to see before they get installed so I know what is going to be done. Although I suppose figuring out what an MS update will do can be pretty hard, since they tend to bundle lots of fixes into sinlge packages.
On the other hand, we're not talking about a dedicated SQL Server machine or anything, so maybe auto updates for desktops isn't a bad idea after all...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I remember back in the days of BBSes people around here would always put ANSI bombs in readme files.
So, no.
In Java:
int a[] = new int[10];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) a[i] = i++;
Each access a[i] is needlessly bounds-checked.
One buffer overflow exists in Winamp 2.81 (latest 2.x release) and two buffer overflows exist in Winamp 3.0 (latest 3.x release). The Winamp 2.81 overflow is with the handling of the Artist ID3v2 tag upon immediate loading of an MP3. The two Winamp 3.0 overflows are present in Media Library's handling of the Artist and Album ID3v2 tags.
There is often the flawed assumption in these reports that people always use the latest version of a particular app. Yes, I know that it would be hard to get and test all versions, but they could at least find out from Nullsoft and indicate what range of versions might be vulnerable.
Nullsoft (bless them - I love Winamp) has an annoying habit of removing or changing features that I like in the minor rev's, which is why I stick to certain versions. I use Winamp 2.50e and 2.78 on various machines. I also have 2.09, 2.70, 2.72 and 2.81 (and a 1.xx and probably others), but don't use them for this reason. Winamp 3 was too buggy as of the build I got a couple of months ago.
Anyway, I often wonder, when I see vulnerability warnings and a version of something that I use is not specifically excluded, is it:
a) Not vulnerable?
b) Not tested for vulnerability ?
Winamp2.5 doesn't handle ID3v2, so it's probably OK. The ID3v2 handling was added somewhere around 2.72, IIRC, so I'll have to do some checking. You might want to check yours as well.
I'd hate be forced to abandon my beloved older Winamps because there's no fix, but that may happen.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Ignorant programmers are not the fault of the language. C makes it simple to avoid buffer overflows almost everywhere (exception being the absence of snprintf() - remedied in C99).
If a programmer is too weak to avoid buffer overflows in C, how will they cope with, say, C++ exception safety?
A long time ago, you could destroy your files and have a very bad day by using that floppy from your friend that had creeping crud on it.
Shortly thereafter, your files were potentially at risk from files that you spent all day downloading from a BBS. Fairly soon after that, a malicious file could sneak onto your hard drive and cause mischief once FTPed from the Internet at a bit higher of a rate. In each case, you pretty much had to type the name of the file to run it.
Enter the world of Windows. Now running the file gets a hell of a lot easier, just a few points and clicks. And obtaining those lovely infected files gets a lot easier with the faster Internet connections and new "killer apps" like Usenet, e-mail, and the World Wide Web gaining in popularity. In less than a year, these files gain literally thousands of new vectors.
Then it becomes possible to pick up an infection by receiving a file via e-mail inside a program that loves to muck about with files before you run them by, er... running them. The only user interaction required is hitting the "send/recieve" button.
After that, malicious files no longer need to be files. They can be specially formatted e-mails, and all you need to do is preview them -- you don't even have to read them -- in order to get smacked by the latest nasty bug.
Don't feel e-mail is safe? Well, it wouldn't matter if you stopped using it entirely, the creeping crud will still get in if you click on a link on the Web. And as if the front door didn't put up a paper-thin defense, the back door will allow malware to slip in via Web server software, file shares, file transfer servers, and even instant messaging.
Now what do we have?
A malicious file you only have to point at for a moment to get an infection.
You've come a long way, baby.
Thanks for a great layman's explanation. IANAProgrammer, but that made the concept perfectly clear to me.
So, if you do bounds checking, is that a 100% fix? If so, it strikes me as simple good procedure that there's no excuse for omitting.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Really? Where's the bug report? I don't see anything on bugs.xmms.org.
Sorry for sounding like an a-hole, but an AC exclaiming a bug in a product, no follow up on the product's web site, and no other info sounds very suspect to me.
-Ducky
Thanks, that's good to know.
Seems to me the solution is to whack budding programmers' knuckles with a ruler until they get in the habit of using bounds checking with each and every buffer their program requires, written on the spot and not tacked on as an afterthought. But considering that probably half the coders out there are self-taught and still have whatever good or bad habits they started with.. *sigh*
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There is a kernel level patch so that nothing can be executed in the stack, but a lot of people don't seem to want it. Actually, I think there are two competing patches. One of them is called Openwall.
There are also libraries to combat this sort of problem as well. Such as the one another poster listed...
That is why audiophiles use "oxygen-free copper wires with authentic virgin yak wool insulation, cryogenicly treated to release signal-distorting sub-micron strain! A steal at $300/ft! Act now, and we will throw in our patented Feng Shui turntable stones - five of these will disgronificate your turntable! Normally $150 each, but a steal at $800 for a set!"
Bah, $300/ft? Are you kidding?
From Purist Audio Design:
-------
Dominus Speaker Cables (1.5 Meter)
Stereo pair of Speaker cables with fluid jacket. For more information on product, see the Product Page. Item weight per pair is 14.0 lbs.
Price each: $10,460.00
-------
So, that's about $2500/ft.
Bwhaahaahahahaha!! /me wipes eyes.
And for the record, I am not an "audiophile". I'm an audio and broadcasting engineer.
-T
Not necessarily. It would be simple for a JIT to recognize that the for's terminating condition was sufficient as a bounds-check and yank the check for the array index. Microsoft's .NET VM does exactly this.
Foobar2000 has a new homepage. Version 0.3 has also been released.
For those wondering what to expect, foobar2000 has a minimalist interface, but it does the job. CPU usage is very frugal and your MP3s can sound noticeably better. Why? Because clipping prevention is built-in, removing any distortion induced by overly loud signals.
I am currently running 0.3, and it's a beautiful piece of work. If you want a multi-format player that runs unobtrusively in the background while you do your other stuff, then foobar2000 is for you. At 168 KB, it's worth trying out.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]