Slashdot Mirror


Flaw in Microsoft JPEG Parsing

KDan writes "As reported by numerous sources, a new vulnerability has been disclosed (and patched) by Microsoft. This one concerns the parsing of JPEGs in XP Microsoft applications. A buffer overflow can be used to execute arbitrary code. So all those times you told your parents/friends that looking at images was safe - well, not anymore."

397 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. If you think looking at images is safe... by apanap · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you obviously never saw goatse...

    --
    Give me a job. Please?
    1. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What the hell is goatse?

    2. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by virid · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would best be described as hell itself.

      --
      "The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
    3. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by apanap · · Score: 1, Funny

      Try googling for it...

      --
      Give me a job. Please?
    4. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, let me try to phrase it as precisely as I can. "It's something that makes a man out of a boy, instantly".

    5. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Googlese? Is that related in any way to Goatse?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    6. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by kabloom · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is goatse? Look it up on wikipedia. The entry is goatse.cx. You'll be glad you didn't have to see the image.

    7. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      google.se? No way in hell am I clicking that link. Of course, it isn't like I'd click ANY link posted in a thread about goatse.

    8. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by afabbro · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    9. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by ircubic · · Score: 1

      I guess he chose it for the ending, or maybe because he is swedish, but it's the swedish version of Google. *.se == Swedish. Just incase you didn't know. ;P

    10. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by kabloom · · Score: 1

      You're safe. Google.se is just an international version of google.

    11. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      See this month's issue of Time.

    12. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 4, Informative

      THAT is a classic. Thanks for that link.

      Note to everyone else, It's safe to click on, but if you don't trust me, just go to time.com and take a look at the cover for the current magazine.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    13. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by John_Allen_Mohammed · · Score: 2, Funny

      from the wikipedia site,

      " After complaints to NIC.CX (the regulation authority of .cx domains) by an office worker named Rhonda Clarke of Christmas Island, the site goatse.cx was taken down Friday, January 16, 2004. (Goat.cx and Hick.org/Goat remain active.) A petition has even been launched to bring goatse.cx back. "

      A petition ? okay guys.

      this little experiment called mankind is now over, it has failed miserably. See you in the afterlife.

      --

      Skype Me! username: john_allen_mohammed
    14. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Baseclass · · Score: 1
      Damn! Just when I start to get that image out of my head, somebody always brings up goatse.cx again.

      Let's see if we can go more than a few days days this time.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    15. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 5, Funny

      1) Think of Goatse as a "portal".
      2) Goatse is a high bandwidth information highway in itself.
      3) Goatse can be a hiding place.
      4) Goatse tests the limits of humanity.
      I ran out of ideas, AC's of the world please fill in the rest...

      --
      If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
    16. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, and that man will require immediate hospitalization and long-term psychotherapy.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by shigelojoe · · Score: 1

      Goatse is not your average close-minded asshole. This asshole is very open-minded.

    18. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by BillX · · Score: 1

      But be forewarned, this site can open up a gaping security hole.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    19. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by isecore · · Score: 1

      It's the swedish-localised version of Google. No worries.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    20. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      DO WHAT? There is nothing on that page that is interesting or even mildly amusing. I'm now dumber for having looked at it.

    21. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that man will require immediate hospitalization and long-term psychotherapy.



      ...at least until they get a grip on reality again.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    22. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by uninstall · · Score: 3, Informative

      You guys ain't seen nuttin' yet. Have a peek at: http://joeclark.org/book/bawcover50.jpg

    23. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      You know... that explains a great deal ;o)

    24. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What the hell is goatse? "

      Ever see a photo of Jack Valenti or Michael Eisner? It's sorta like that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "this little experiment called mankind is now over, it has failed miserably."

      We Transhumans agree.

      Unfortunately for you humans, there is no afterlife.

      Unless of course we decide to run an emulation of you at some distant future date - and why would we be crazy enough to do that? Once is enough.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    26. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Do ya think Time did that deliberately?

      Somebody in the graphics department with a sense of humor?

      A sense of humor at Time Magazine? What am I thinking?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    27. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      You're just very very lucky that you didn't get that. Pity us who laughed at the horrors of the Goatse cover.

    28. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

      5) With goatse.cx now removed, there is a gaping void where once there was a... gaping void.

      6) Goatse lets us see what a man is really made of

      7) Goatse lets us see into the depth of a man

      8) Goatse give you insight

      This pit of a topic makes me feel hollow, so I will stop - leaving an opening for someone else to continue.

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    29. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I have been trying to expunge goatse.cx from my memory but people are always mentioning it and now we get score:5 posts about it which just strengthens those persistent little neurons in that part of my memory. I guess I am scarred for life. :(

    30. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      Both this and the Time cover use the same hand twice. How cheap!

    31. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      DON'T google "goatse". I fell right into that trap.

      Look it up on Wikipedia first. Then if you really want to see it, you can click the link from there, but at least you'll have been warned.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    32. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by timts · · Score: 1

      it's been long time and it's not just microsoft, most jpeg viewing software I tried can open my cd tray when I view that "open cd tray" picture. :D

    33. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Look at tubgirl and you'll never think of goatse again.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    34. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by belthezar · · Score: 1

      Wow that is fantastic. That is either a huge coincidence or someone at Time had some inspiration .....

      To me it looked much closer to the "inspiration" as a thumbnail. The full size didn't look quite as bad, but still very funny.

      Good find, OP!

    35. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by gavin_barr · · Score: 1
      Or possibly the gate to hell.

      --
      Sure I have a license to drug this squirrel.
    36. Re:If you think looking at images is safe... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Are you?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If a small company releases a product and people get harmed the lawyers decend like a pack of wolves to sue them.

    Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft? After all people sue companies all the time even if the product in question has warning labels.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      because any lawyer that has a chance of winning already works for microsoft

    2. Re:Why? by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 1


      If a small company releases a product and people get harmed the lawyers decend like a pack of wolves to sue them.

      Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft? After all people sue companies all the time even if the product in question has warning labels.


      Uh.. Because losing some data, while sucky, is hardly the same thing as, say, losing an eye? Or your life? Try to put things in some perspective.

    3. Re:Why? by jd10131 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Four letters: EULA

    4. Re:Why? by bonniot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh.. Because losing some data, while sucky, is hardly the same thing as, say, losing an eye? Or your life? Try to put things in some perspective.
      Don't you think that a company that sold file cabinets that accidentally shred documents once in a while would be sued?
    5. Re:Why? by Hatta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You make more money working for Microsoft than against them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Why? by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the kind of people who sue despite warning labels aren't going to be gunning for their OS Vendor (what's an OS? It's the computer's fault!). The average layman uses Occam's Razor to place blame on a computer. If something goes wrong it's most likely that their child did it or the computer is just broken and IBM or Dell is to blame.

      EULA's are the reason smarter people don't sue. They exempt the software vendor from an unimaginable amount of liability without the user ever knowing unless they read it.

      There appears to be nobody in the third group: the group that understands where the problem is but doesn't understand what EULA's do. They'd be the type to sue.

      The 4th group, which understands what an EULA does but doesn't understand how computers work, is likely the group that writes EULA's.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    7. Re:Why? by jg_elliott · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anyone else find it really stupid that computers are such a big part of people's lives, yet the majority of machines are held to ransom by one company that is getting rich off of the digital revolution?
      Isn't it about time that the government started help funding open source solutions so that the citizens dont have to put up with the microsoft tax?

    8. Re:Why? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well yea because you wouldn't expect a file cabnet to shred your files.

      On the other hand Microsoft spent years conditioning people to belive that computers just randomly shred your files.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    9. Re:Why? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1
      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    10. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I didn't say HURT I said HARMED. Harmed means they are in the worse condition then before they used the product.

    11. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      John Edwards is worth more than 20,000,000 USD. Other major partners at large lawfirms make over 1,000,000 USD per year.

      Corp lawyers working for Microsoft do not make near that much.

    12. Re:Why? by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah exactly. When I saw the grandparent post I slapped my forehead. The EULA clearly states that anything bad that happens to you isn't Microsoft's fault. Most software programs have that same clause in their license. If it weren't for that, Microsoft would have been killed by lawsuits years ago.

      Other industries don't have that luxury though. An ice cream company can't say put a label saying if you die eating our product we can't be at fault. One reason is that the FDA would go after them. Another reason is nobody would then buy the ice cream. But since it's so common in the software industry, people don't think twice about agreeing to the EULA.

    13. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      People sue all the time for no reason that is why I asked why no one SUES them, not why no one wins.

    14. Re:Why? by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Good, then the question about the validity of the EULA's will come to the forefront.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    15. Re:Why? by jd10131 · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I play one on /.

      Other industries (like a skydiving school) might make you sign a disclaimer. This has the appearance of protecting the company from a lawsuit. The reality is that these do not hold up court if said company is found to be negligent.

      This is not true of EULAs. I think the legal reason is that you do not own software. The EULA is your permission to use a copy of it. That makes it a contract, not a disclaimer.

      The other reason is that software is notoriously difficult to make un-buggy. If a precident were set that a software company could be sued for "negligence" there would be massive chaos in the industry.

    16. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Some of them have, I don't remember the details put Adobe had one concerning OEM software. I think that Adobe lost.

    17. Re:Why? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then there's the 5th group, who realize that EULAs aren't worth the paper they're not printed on, but don't feel like wasting their personal fortunes fighting a case against a major corporation over what is most likely small claims. (less than $5000 damages)

    18. Re:Why? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      Both as a software professional and a consumer of software products, I despise warranty disclaimers because they let many companies negligently ship poor products. But as somebody who needs a paycheck, I must ask how much people will be willing to pay for warrantied software.

    19. Re:Why? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      That case was regarding unbundling and resale of OEM software.

      As you have not agreed to the license within you are free to do (within reason) what you want with it, including selling it.

      This is not unlike buying a package of mini Hershey bars, each of which are labeled "not for individual resale", however there is nothing stopping you from selling them individually.

    20. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, in the USA at least, their is. The do not have nutritional info on them, that is why they say that. It stops people from suing them.

      Damn lawyers ;->

    21. Re:Why? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I must ask how much people will be willing to pay for warrantied software.

      It's available, sort of.
      It's called a "Service Level Agreement". SLAs are horrendously expensive, but big companies pay up because getting stuck without an SLA is even more expensive.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    22. Re:Why? by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      Come to think of it, we should be suing MS. I haven't clicked though the EULA of MS, but I have lost mamy days of full work, the daily annoyance of MS viruses and lots and lots of bandwidth ude to MS' negligence. Why don't we sue?

      Well, I haven't got the money it takes...

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    23. Re:Why? by westlake · · Score: 1

      I have never heard the phrase "Microsoft Tax" used outside of Slashdot.

    24. Re:Why? by tshak · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't expect file cabinet makers to create a device that prevents a malicious person from installing blades that shred your paper.

      Microsoft customers lived in a land where all code was trusted, therefore Microsoft could add all the features that customers wanted, even if those features caused security concerns, because if a box lives at home and is disconnected, there really are no security concerns. Unfortunately it took Microsoft a long time to figure out that once a computer is connected, security matters. But that doesn't mean that Windows randomly shreds files.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    25. Re:Why? by e_AltF4 · · Score: 1

      You seem not to read much outside /. :-)

    26. Re:Why? by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      because the eula makes them immune

    27. Re:Why? by the_rev_matt · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor? What the hell are you talkin' 'bout, boy? I use a Gillette, myself. And what does all that have to do with computers anyhow?

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    28. Re:Why? by next1 · · Score: 1

      usually it's used in relation to buying laptops - it's impossible (except for the few linux pre-installs there have been) to buy a laptop without XP pre-installed, and that is included in the price. that's one of the reasons that so many people set up dual boot systems on laptops.

    29. Re:Why? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      As you have not agreed to the license within you are free to do (within reason) what you want with it, including selling it.

      Well, if you haven't accepted it, then you haven't accepted it. Doesn't matter if it's a 'no resale' clause or a 'no litigate' clause.

      My understanding is that here is not (currently) much agreement on whether shrink-wrap EULAs are binding, so where you file the suit would probably have a very real effect on your liklihood of success.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    30. Re:Why? by kundor · · Score: 2, Funny
      The smart people don't have to pay the dell tax.

      see: http://newegg.com/

    31. Re:Why? by g0at · · Score: 1

      people don't think twice about agreeing to the EULA.

      What makes you say that anybody is agreeing to them? We're just clicking a button that lies beneath a bunch of opaque verbiage that we skip over.

      Or has the validity of these "EULAs" been legally tested somewhere that I missed?

      -b

    32. Re:Why? by crucini · · Score: 1

      Microsoft wouldn't use its in-house lawyers for litigation. But I may have missed your point.

    33. Re:Why? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      And like his namesake on the SciFi channel, he channels dead people too!

      Only Microsoft would make a picture a vector for a computer virus. Next thing you know the BSOD will expose a security hole.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    34. Re:Why? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I studied a bit in Business School. The law is quite clear on disclaimers and negligence. A disclaimer or license agreement cannot supercede the law, just like a contract must be within the letter of the law. (at least in Canada)

      In this case, the common law on torts would supercede any shrink wrap agreement.

      The trick is to prove damages. Suing Microsoft for a security hole is sort of like suing the company that built your home for not leaving bars on the windows. Sure, your home is insecure, and you've suffered losses because of the windows in your home, but it's a tough case for the courts to determine that Microsoft's liable.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    35. Re:Why? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft? "

      Because Microsoft didn't commit the crime. The criminal who used the exploit did. It's fun to suggest things that would get MS in trouble, but if they were sue'able for this, every other product in the world that you like would be in danger, including Linux.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    36. Re:Why? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand Microsoft spent years conditioning people to belive that computers just randomly shred your files. "

      Unlike Linux or OSX, which are completely immune to hard drive failures and pilot error.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    37. Re:Why? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The crazy thing is, half-inbred "geeks" (the ones that knew enough to be dangerous) in the 90's would often back MS up in this defense, because either a) they didn't know what really caused it, and "that's just how computers worked", b) they didn't want to blame their precious Microsoft/Bill Gates, or c) they didn't want to accept blame for making their friends/family for running software that's utter shit.

      That's why people think it's natural for computers to destroy their work.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    38. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      But other companies and products are sued for that reason. I could tell you stories about clints suing a brokerage house I worked for that would make you scream (7 accounts, large profits in 5 of the accounts, moderate losses in 2 of the accounts, sue for only the 2 accounts. It's the stock market not a savings account)

    39. Re:Why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Other industries (like a skydiving school) might make you sign a disclaimer. This has the appearance of protecting the company from a lawsuit. The reality is that these do not hold up court if said company is found to be negligent. This is not true of EULAs. I think the legal reason is that you do not own software.

      No, I think the reason is that EULAs have never been tested in court. Large companies don't sign the shrinkwrap EULA, they have a separate contract. Small companies and individuals who have been told they're subject to such EULAs can't afford to take MS to court.

    40. Re:Why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      it's impossible (except for the few linux pre-installs there have been) to buy a laptop without XP pre-installed

      Perhaps you've heard of "Apple", a small Californian company with their own BSD distro. They make non-XP laptops.

    41. Re:Why? by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft?

      Because programming is in principle the _only_ engineering profession in the world that offers _no_ guarantee whatsoever for it's work. Not Microsoft, not Linux, not ISVs, noone. If the software burns your house, kills your dog and rapes your sister, well, tough. You should've known better than to use software.

      Every SW licence I ever saw explicitly says so. At best you can expect to get back what you paid for the SW, and stop using it. Damages? Forget it.

      Ain't it grand to be a programmer? :-)

      p.s. Yes, some SW applications (medical, for example) offer some sort of guarantee, but at a price that would render computers unusable for the general public.

    42. Re:Why? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      OSX isn't available for PC laptops. Sorry, try again.

    43. Re:Why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      OSX isn't available for PC laptops. Sorry, try again.

      Try reading the f* post you're replying to. No one specified "PC" laptops.

    44. Re:Why? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So why than can you sue Gun makers when someone gets shot? "

      A.) What use is a gun for other than killing?

      B.) Who has been murdered due to a flaw in Windows?

      C.) There has to be some room for mistakes, or any company can be sued because some twisted person abuses an obscure flaw.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    45. Re:Why? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure format and restore has never fixed a drive failure.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    46. Re:Why? by andyfaeglasgow · · Score: 1

      ...programming is in principle the _only_ engineering profession in the world that offers _no_ guarantee whatsoever for it's work.

      Surely that's why Micro$oft have been allowed to make so much money. Whilst more established engineering professions have been forced to give up some of their profits when things go wrong, (or spend more money making sure they don't), Microsoft have been able to get away with keeping all their profits.

      More fool the people who pay for software without these guarantees.

    47. Re:Why? by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      Surely that's why Micro$oft have been allowed to make so much money.

      Micro$oft? Before trying to single them out, could you point to any open source, free, LInux or whatever other company/product/programmers that do offer guarantees for their work? I'm sure RedHat, Debian and others don't. I've yet to see to a SourceForge project that does. What exactly are blaming M$ for?

    48. Re:Why? by andyfaeglasgow · · Score: 1

      I singled Microsoft out because unlike RedHat, Debian and others, they make software and charge people for it.

      RedHat, Debian and others are collections of Open Source Software, conveniently distributed as a single package. How can you (or why should you) guarantee software that you don't even produce?

      Microsoft, make their own software, that noone can verify the quality of then charge people to use it.

      Like I said, other engineers have to give up some of their profits to pay out when things go wrong. For Microsoft, this would mean $100's of millions/year. For projects on SourceForge, this means nante.

    49. Re:Why? by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time taking you seriously, but I'll bite.

      RedHat, Debian and others are collections of Open Source Software, conveniently distributed as a single package. How can you (or why should you) guarantee software that you don't even produce?

      Does that matter? They exist in order to produce profits for their owners, same as MS. If MS should be held accountable for the SW they use to make profits, why should Linux companies be given a break? They didn't produce it? Well, they sure as hell charge real dollars for supporting it.

      Like I said, other engineers have to give up some of their profits to pay out when things go wrong.

      You're getting it wrong. Other engineers have to pay for the _damages_ caused by their shoddy work. Profit or no profit, it doesn't enter into the problem. They are obliged to guarantee for thier work by the state, or they get their licences revoked. Architect that designs a building is held liable for the work, wether he got paid for it or not.

      I really don't see the rationale for SW to be any different. It's either all or nothing. Then again, I clearly see the rationale for not giving any guarantees. If they were supposed to be given, not a lot of SW would get produced.

    50. Re:Why? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Actually this sort of court cases have been won before, against builders of homes where people got sick in. Think houses built out of fibro-cement, which contains asbestos, or houses which simply did not follow the local building code to the letter.

      I think there is a case to be made when you are forced to use an O/S due to market dominance and because of that fact you lose your data or your credit card details get divulged.

      I would have thought that some kind of class action suit against Microsoft is almost inevitable when enough damages have accumulated.

  3. Combined with airpwn.....wow by flinxmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (Glad I stuck with IE 5.01 sp3 on NT)

    Man...talk about attack vectors. This would make a killer (as in bad) worm.

    IM
    Email
    Browsers (probably several)
    Anything....heck just copy exploit code to every accessible jpg file on a machine and/or network.

    As usual, the writers of the "mitigating factors" section don't seem to have much imagination.

    Remember the airpwn project? You could trojan/crack every unpatched machine on a wireless network who pulls up a web browser. And what about those folks who whacked interlands proxies to inject code? Just inject jpgs.

    Does anyone know if this can be 'stealth' injected into a JPG (like some of those mp3 issues), or is it standalone exploit code?

    1. Re:Combined with airpwn.....wow by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Remember the airpwn project?

      You're not the first to think of this--someone posted about just exactly that in this old Bugtraq post, from back when airpwn was first exhibited.

      Looks like it will be getting a lot more use at this rate... :/

  4. Not the problem by MikeMacK · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The vulnerability could only be exploited by an attacker who persuaded a user to open a specially crafted file or to view a directory that contains the specially crafted image," Microsoft said in a statement. "There is no way for an attacker to force a user to open a malicious file."

    The problem is not "forcing" people to open attachments, the problem has always been that people open attachments.

    1. Re:Not the problem by sfraggle · · Score: 2

      Does this also affect JPEG attachments in Outlook?

      --
      were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
    2. Re:Not the problem by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds to me like it should be sufficient simply to have a tainted JPEG image on a web page.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Not the problem by suckfish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blaming the victims for opening attachments is silly.

      If it's that easy to tell the difference between hostile and benign content, then the differentiation should be done in the application in the first place. If programmers aren't up to doing this, what chance does Joe average user have?

      Oh, wait, the programmers did do it, just not the ones that work for M$.

    4. Re:Not the problem by SpooForBrains · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong here but merely sending an HTML formatted message containing the image would be enough to infect most Windows users, since both Hatemail and Outhouse automatically render HTML emails and download external image links.

      (PS. For moderators. Hating M$ products does not make me a troll and I will not expurgate myself for fear of being modded down)

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    5. Re:Not the problem by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The full list of affected programs, from Microsoft's site:

      * Windows XP
      * Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1)
      * Windows Server 2003
      * Internet Explorer 6 SP1
      * Office XP SP3
      Note Office XP SP3 includes Word 2002, Excel 2002, Outlook 2002, PowerPoint 2002, FrontPage 2002, and Publisher 2002.
      * Office 2003
      Note Office 2003 includes Word 2003, Excel 2003, Outlook 2003, PowerPoint 2003, FrontPage 2003, Publisher 2003, InfoPath 2003, and OneNote 2003.
      * Digital Image Pro 7.0
      * Digital Image Pro 9
      * Digital Image Suite 9
      * Greetings 2002
      * Picture It! 2002 (all versions)
      * Picture It! 7.0 (all versions)
      * Picture It! 9 (all versions, including Picture It! Library)
      * Producer for PowerPoint (all versions)
      * Project 2002 SP1 (all versions)
      * Project 2003 (all versions)
      * Visio 2002 SP2 (all versions)
      * Visio 2003 (all versions)
      * Visual Studio .NET 2002
      Note Visual Studio .NET 2002 includes Visual Basic .NET Standard 2002, Visual C# .NET Standard 2002, and Visual C++ .NET Standard 2002.
      * Visual Studio .NET 2003
      Note Visual Studio .NET 2003 includes Visual Basic .NET Standard 2003, Visual C# .NET Standard 2003, Visual C++ .NET Standard 2003, and Visual J# .NET Standard 2003.
      * .NET Framework 1.0 SP2
      * .NET Framework 1.0 SDK SP2
      * .NET Framework 1.1
      * Platform SDK Redistributable: GDI+

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    6. Re:Not the problem by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be an attachment? Just have an HTML message with an IMG tag.

    7. Re:Not the problem by JayJay.br · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would go even further: opening a specially crafted image is automatic if it is inside an HTML page.

      How easy would it be to make a website about almost anything and containing one of these babies?

      On a sidenote, would Firefox on Windows be vulnerable? Does it use Microsoft's JPEG library or does it have libjpeg embedded?

    8. Re:Not the problem by Spad · · Score: 1

      Plus who cares about attachments when you can just embed it in a webpage?

    9. Re:Not the problem by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      If it's that easy to tell the difference between hostile and benign content, then the differentiation should be done in the application in the first place. If programmers aren't up to doing this, what chance does Joe average user have?

      It is easy, though, it's just not something that can be done by a computer (yet). If you (for example) get a short message from someone you know, but with a completely different writing style and an attachment you didn't ask for...Maybe you should be careful and not open it?

      That difference is really what it comes down to most times...It boggles the mind how people can get emails that look completely different from anything else the sender has written, and yet still have total trust in it.

    10. Re:Not the problem by jubei · · Score: 1

      ... Or to include an image in a multipart mime email.

      Most email clients can be set to not download remote images, but most users probably assume it is safe to view attached/mimed images.

    11. Re:Not the problem by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      the problem has always been that people open attachments.


      I'd say the problem is that bad things can happen when people open attachments. A properly secure computer system would make sure that opening attachments was a non-risky thing to do.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re:Not the problem by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      Outlook and Outlook Express do not automatically download external images.

    13. Re:Not the problem by Gooba42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe inject one as an Ad somewhere?

      Most people don't know how to turn off images in their browsers much less why they would want to do so.

      --
      I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
    14. Re:Not the problem by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      As of OL 2003, it doesn't. You can turn it on, or leave it at the default off.

    15. Re:Not the problem by Flexagon · · Score: 1

      And because of this gigantic list, many of which are not handled by the WU or OU sites, there are several annoying novice-unfriendly manual steps involved after visiting WU.

    16. Re:Not the problem by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does this also affect JPEG attachments in Outlook?

      Lets see....

      Ok, check your email now.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    17. Re:Not the problem by Thaelon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So Windows 2000 is unaffected....I see more and more reasons every day for NOT "upgrading" to XP.

      I'm not trying to get both sides of the flame war to attack me, but I -like- Windows 2000. I haven't had to format in a couple years and most of these new security holes pass me by.

      If you ask me Windows XP is Windows 2000 + bloat + security holes.

      Can anybody give me a convincing reason to "upgrade" to XP? I even own a legitimate hologram cd (of XP) that I got at a .NET launch event, and I've never used it.

      --

      Question everything

    18. Re:Not the problem by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      Properly secure in this case would be a processor architecture that allows areas of memory to be marked "non-executable".
      A picture is data FFS! What would a processor need to treat any of the bytes that make up the image as instructions?

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    19. Re:Not the problem by Methuseus · · Score: 3, Informative

      the only reason I had to upgrade to XP is cause I got it for free and was using a pirated copy of 2000. Plus I found it had much better driver and game support than 2000 even though they are basically the same architecture. Go MS, makig 2 almost identical operating systems incompatible with some early drivers....

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    20. Re:Not the problem by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      One reason that XP was a keeper for me:

      Time to boot with Win2k: 3 minutes
      Time to boot with XP: 20 seconds

      And yes, the same software were installed. That's of course not including BIOS boot time, there is just simply no point.

      Ah... And a last thing: Time to boot is not time to the login prompt, but the time until you can open Firefox and start browsing.

    21. Re:Not the problem by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 2, Informative
      After reading many posts There seems to be a need for some clarification:

      The majority of posts seem to indicate that you need to open the jpg or open an attachment, or use a different browser, or a simple patch to the OS will fix the problem. This is all not true

      The problem is the way jpg files are processed. A specific DLL (I forget the name) used by the OS is to blame. If you view an infected jpg file from ANYWHERE, email, attachment, on the web, in a word doc, anywhere, the embedded file will execute and infect your machine.

      Thats not the worst part though. Its trying to patch your system. Its not just the OS that processes jpg files. Any microsoft office product has its own versions of the dll. 3rd party software has its own versions. And while they all share the same name, they are not the same file, so it is not just a simple find and replace. This will involve a whole series of patches!

    22. Re:Not the problem by TheSync · · Score: 1

      So much for .NET managed code being safe. I suppose it is - if .NET itself is safe!

  5. Users of WinXP SP2.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are not affected, unless they have Office installed.

    1. Re:Users of WinXP SP2.. by lou2112 · · Score: 1

      that's one of the most misleading subjects i've ever seen. a lot of people have office installed, like, say, the majority of corporate users out there and those who use the millions of computers sold with explorer bundled in.

    2. Re:Users of WinXP SP2.. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't SP2 running an AMD 64bit be safe? I though the No Data Execute feature was supposed to prevent this kinda shit from happening.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Users of WinXP SP2.. by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, this could probably be used as a heuristic in attaining the number of exploits on your machine. Staticticaly, it seems the amount of exploitable Microsoft software on your machine is directly proportional to the amount of Microsoft software on your machine.

      Just add up how much MS software you have installed, multiply by factor X, being the average rate of exploits per package, and you know how many you have to find and correct.

    4. Re:Users of WinXP SP2.. by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      No Data Execute isn't all-powerful--it only stops certain types of code from running:

      Execution protection (also known as NX, or no execute) prevents code execution from data pages such as the default heap, various stacks, and memory pools. Protection can be applied in both user and kernel-mode.

      It also forces developers to avoid executing code out of data pages without explicitly marking the pages as executable. This promotes good software engineering and best practices for application and driver developers.

      Execution protection is an operating system feature that relies on processor hardware to mark memory with an attribute that indicates that code should not be executed from that memory. Execution protection functions on a per-virtual memory page basis, most often changing a bit in the page table entry (PTE) to mark the memory page.


      From MSDN.

  6. i knew it! by Coneasfast · · Score: 5, Funny

    and i was always telling everyone from the start, download your porn in png format.

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:i knew it! by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      what is this? Soviet Microsoft? The place where, when you consider the worm that turns on your webcam and the ability to execute arbitrary code from JPG, your porn looks at you?

    2. Re:i knew it! by Trejkaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't there a vulnerability in *nix's libpng a short while ago, though?

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:i knew it! by Portigui · · Score: 1
      Wasn't there a vulnerability in *nix's libpng a short while ago, though?
      Why yes, there was.
  7. Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...Everyone else uses libJPEG.

    Any bets on how long it'll be until someone finds either a hole in the Microsoft PNG decoder or libJPEG? We've had holes in libPNG and Microsoft's JPEG decoder.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    1. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Informative
      > ...Everyone else uses libJPEG.
      >
      > Any bets on how long it'll be until someone finds either a hole in the Microsoft PNG decoder or libJPEG? We've had holes in libPNG and Microsoft's JPEG decoder.

      Ah, but in a world of closed-source third-party software, who's "everyone"? Without a sample JPEG as a proof-of-concept of the vector, there's no trivial way to tell whether FooView32.exe v1.03, or BarSee.exe v4.9 uses and/or was built with the affected components.

      This is a real-world issue. Anyone who uses a digital camera frequently will probably end up using third-party image viewer/library software, because the image-viewing capability built into IE is unusable for even semi-serious work.

    2. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Check the "about" box for the program. Most of the libWhatever libraries use a four-paragraph BSD or other license that requires attribution.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      ...Everyone else uses libJPEG.

      Any bets on how long it'll be until someone finds either a hole in the Microsoft PNG decoder or libJPEG? We've had holes in libPNG and Microsoft's JPEG decoder.


      So you think security is best served by a homogeneous environment, where everyone uses the same implementation?

    4. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by jisatsusha · · Score: 1

      Not really, Mozilla uses Libpr0n.

    5. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by MinimeMongo · · Score: 1

      Wonder what Forgent has to say about this?

    6. Re:Microsoft rolls their own buggy JPEG reader... by Shillo · · Score: 1

      Before they (uncutely) renamed it to imglib2, the Mozilla's image reader library was officially called libpr0n.

      --

      --
      I refuse to use .sig
  8. Personal attack... by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been telling people for years "no, you can't get a virus from things like a JPEG picture. You're fine."

    Now this. Considering how many bugs are reported in all version of MS software, it is entirely possible that there are PERSONAL bugs. "This one is for Charles. Let's fuck with him."

    Sigh...

    -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Personal attack... by RocketScientist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Before that, I told people for years, "No, you can't get a virus from just opening an email". Then the first "outlook virus that spams everyone in your address book" happened.

      Is anything safe? Should I start telling people, "No, actually nothing is safe, and you should just not use the computer if you don't want it infected with something nasty".

      Or just get them Macs.

    2. Re:Personal attack... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You need to show them how to keep themselves safe.

      Teach them how to update and run their antivirus software. Teach them how to use their firewall software. If they don't have one, give them one.

      I showed my friend FireFox one day, and it's all she's used ever since. She says she is so happy she got rid of IE.

      If you are willing to take your time and show people all kinds of stuff, they'll learn and use what they've learned to keep themselves safe.

      Of course, there are idiots. You can just hit them.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    3. Re:Personal attack... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Change that sentence to "No, you won't get a virus" and you're fine. They'll hear it as the same thing; you'll be correct on practical grounds, because the first malicious exploit using this is still some way off. Your friends probably won't be infected first. You'll know ahead of time.

    4. Re:Personal attack... by Ramses0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I started using Linux 5 years ago (hello Mozilla M12 :^). This was -just- before the internet went to hell with email viruses, worms, spyware, etc. I've just recently bought a Mac laptop (so quiet! :^), and a big factor was that I don't want to deal with windows (ever. except at work, where they do the whole managed deployment things).

      Basically: as difficult as it is to work with Linux (even Debian unstable. Vis: Wireless USB thingies, USB thingies in general, Kernel 2.6 upgrade + CDRom burning, etc), that pain is reduced 999x over by not having to run Ad-aware ever 2 hours, and not having to worry about patching the bug of the month that allows remote-root worms. At work I admin a little Debian-stable server because our IT/Unix department is mostly l4me, and have it set up to cron @daily apt-get "search for security updates" and email to our group. Get about 1-2 every other month, and that's with Known, Old software (provably more secure after every security bugfix). I can't imagine running windows for anything important. It's like being in middle-school with a big "Kick Me" sign taped to your ass.

      --Robert

    5. Re:Personal attack... by rar · · Score: 1

      I've been telling people for years "no, you can't get a virus from things like a JPEG picture. You're fine."

      Where do all these misconceptions come from? "It's safe to view images", "It's safe to read pdf:s", "It's safe to open text documents in emacs", etc. etc.

      ALL programs have bugs. Each bug is potentially exploitable. ANY TIME you use any program, you risk a bug being triggered (either unintentional or, if you are unlucky, due some some sinister intent). After that, all bets are off -- a malware payload may do anything that you can do with your computer -- erase all you files, copy your private emails, replace your internet browser to snoop on your login to your internet bank, etc. etc. Even a bug triggered by mistake may run a recursive remove on all your files just by pure bad luck.

      And then this... (from the top post):
      So all those times you told your parents/friends that looking at images was safe - well, not anymore."

      "not anymore"? To be precise; it was NEVER safe. It still (after an update) isn't "safe". The bug has been lurking there basically forever. Who knows if some blackhat hacker have known this long before it became publically known today? Who are *sure* there are no other parsing bugs lurking in the code that will be reported next year? A better summing up would have been:
      "So all those times you told your parents/friends that looking at images was safe -- you were obviously driveling and had no idea what you were talking about".

      On a related note, I have previously (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=95331&cid=817 0288)
      pushed for extending resource management to strengthen the protection against all kinds of virus, malware and catastrophic bugs.

    6. Re:Personal attack... by onlyjoking · · Score: 1

      I got into Linux around the transition between RedHat 7 and 8 but had to run 'doze for webdev apps like Dreamweaver and Photoshop. Now I have a G5, 3 Linux boxes and one XP box which is ONLY used for viewing web pages hosted locally on Apache 1.3.31/PHP4&5/mod_perl/Fedora 2. With SAMBA 3 running on the Linux machines I keep all my files on 100% Linux goodness and backup to the G5 on a second disk. So, XP to me is nothing more than a thin client. Well, there's Kazaa Lite, I suppose but anytime soon I expect there will be something equivalent for Linux.

      Dreamweaver I hardly use at all these days since discovering the joy of Perl's Template Toolkit. Emacs with HTML-helper mode has everything I need for hand-coding. Photoshop I can run on the G5. Even my 9-year-old daughter prefers Fedora and my G5 to the XP machine she has to use at her mum's most of the time.

    7. Re:Personal attack... by M51DPS · · Score: 1

      It's at this point that the person using their new, unpatched mac looks at a png with malicious code that takes control of their computer.

    8. Re:Personal attack... by dangil · · Score: 1

      the next virus will be distributed via Mac... the mac users won't be affected, obviously, but it will affect every PC user who has email contact with a Mac user...

    9. Re:Personal attack... by TMB · · Score: 1

      The internet went to hell just 5 years ago?? It's been September since 1994...

      [TMB]

    10. Re:Personal attack... by jmitek · · Score: 1

      "Well, there's Kazaa Lite, I suppose but anytime soon I expect there will be something equivalent for Linux." Yah, get Nicotine. It's a soulseek client and its really kicks arse.

    11. Re:Personal attack... by ce25254 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I already have that one. It's called Mac OS X. Infectious!

    12. Re:Personal attack... by rar · · Score: 1

      ALL programs have bugs.

      Nonsense. All programs MAY have bugs. The likelyhood of bugs increases (very rapidly) with program complexity. Trivial programs have a very low probability of bugs, and when bug free can be proven so.

      Irrelevant; *all* programs in daily use by normal users have reached so far, far up your complexity scale that my generalization is fair. You're talking about things like "helo world", and even then 1) you're running it through a compiler or vm that is very complex and may add bugs; 2) you're using a complex io-library that may contain bugs; 3) your output is somehow shown on screen through graphic drivers (and we know how buggy they use to be...)

      ANY TIME you use any program, you risk a bug being triggered (either unintentional or, if you are unlucky, due some some sinister intent). After that, all bets are off -- a malware payload may do anything that you can do with your computer [...]

      Ridiculous. Not all bugs can lead to execution of arbitrary code. Only those that do really get much publicity.

      Except for "ridiculous" how does what you say go against anything I said? Reread: "risk being triggered" and "a malware payload may do anything". Also note; its not just "execution of arbitary code" that may be dangerous, even other bugs may still be expolitable in a potentially harmful way.

      The *point* I'm trying to get through here is that you always run A RISK. That is, NO PROGRAM IS SAFE TO RUN operating on any data. You never know if the code you run contains expolitable bugs or not.

    13. Re:Personal attack... by Tribbles · · Score: 1

      I said this in 1992:

      It is possible that such an exploit exists.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=34216&cid=37 00 920

    14. Re:Personal attack... by Tribbles · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that should be 2002, not 1992.

      I must remember which decade we are in :)

    15. Re:Personal attack... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      So, XP to me is nothing more than a thin client.

      I don't think that, by any definition, Windows XP can be called thin.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  9. WARNING - useless buzzword alert!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The parent post has been flagged for violation of the "Anti Buzzword Use Act". Specific violation: use of the phrase "attack vector". Sanction: exile from use of any computer, writing utensil or paint brush for 10 years.

  10. Back in the day by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Call me old school, but remember back in the day when opening e-mail was ok, and that executable attachments were what we watched out for? Images were ok, MIDI files were ok, and a bit later, even MP3 files were ok.

    Of course if the same codebase were used then, it NEVER was ok...but we sure thought things were juuuust fine.

    Is this any way related to the leaked code that led to a vuln discovery regarding BMP files? I know it's a different format but seems like parsing image files spells some trouble.

    1. Re:Back in the day by Wanker · · Score: 1
      Call me old school, but remember back in the day when opening e-mail was ok, and that executable attachments were what we watched out for?


      I remember those days fondly, but unfortunately as I've learned more about software bugs and exploits the more I know "opening e-mail was ok" was false.

      Even the "safe" mailers have been subject to terminal-based exploits using features of displays which allowed special escape sequences to "type" arbitrary commands. Text-based E-mail programs have also had problems with buffer overflows. (Pine comes to mind, but it's certainly not alone.)

      Today's complex software makes problems more likely, but a lot of the perceived drop in security from "the old days" is simply that we're now more aware of it.
    2. Re:Back in the day by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      "I have a PC running Windows at home and it is NOT connected to the network. I've had few files from download that I opened with this machine. Since I got this Windows PC off the network, I have not experienced any virus attacks or malfunction caused by spy/malware. It's been two-three years since the last time my PC was damaged by a trojan, which made me decide to unhook the cable.

      That's funny. I have a PC running Windows at home and I have it connected to the network all the time. True, I have it behind a linux firewall, and true again that I do 90% of my web browsing as well as 100% of my email reading on Linux, but funnily enough I have not had a virus/trojan/worm in the six years I've had broadband.

      At work I only use Windows (for desktops). These are of course also behind a linux firewall and I have never been "attacked" there either.

      I think you should take off your tinfoil hat for a moment and learn to secure your PCs and start using the appropriate software for all "risky" activities that you might undertake. For instance, you should *never* trawl for cracks and serialz at www.astalavista.com on anything but a Linux PC.

      Have I gone too far to keep my sanity?

      I certainly think so.

      I use this machine as a video editing suite, and I simply cannot afford to lose video clips stored on the hard drives. When data you have in your computer is critical, the best defense might be to isolate the computer from outside world.

      Errm no, you are dead wrong. The best defence for protecting critical data is to BACK IT UP, which is something that I assume you are NOT doing, because if you were all these paranoid-isolationist precautions you are employing would be entirely unecessary.

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    3. Re:Back in the day by yason · · Score: 1

      Call me old school, but remember back in the day when opening e-mail was ok, and that executable attachments were what we watched out for? Images were ok, MIDI files were ok, and a bit later, even MP3 files were ok.

      Call me old school but before somebody invented attachments, MIME parts, and HTML messages, everything was cool. If you wanted to include a binary file, you'd uuencode it and include the text in the message (or use base64): point being that no email client didn't try to execute anything in the email. It was just plain text and plain text if viewed as such can't contain viruses[1]. If you uudecoded (or had your email client uudecode) the file yourself and then shot your feet manually, fine. But it wasn't tied to some semi-automatic receiving/previewing/clicking/opening of an email.

      [1] Except that I've been waiting for a UTF-8 text decoding bug to appear in Windows. UTF-8 is trivial, but not that trivial.

    4. Re:Back in the day by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      "What makes you think that using a Linux PC is any safer?"

      Are you suggesting that a Linux PC with Konquerer is just as unsafe as a Windows PC with IE?

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  11. this isn't the first image exploit by gnat_x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    there have been lots of image exploits put out there.

    if memory serves there was even a png patch for linux this past summer.

    gif exploits have been around for a while too.

    the real worry here, as with most M$ security releases is how long they knew about it, and whether they waited until SP2 was released so they could say that their new software didn't have that vulnerability.

    microsoft security department, we take orders from marketing!

    1. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by ad0gg · · Score: 4, Informative

      SP2 changed all the core libraries to have protection from buffer overuns hence its not affected.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    2. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Unless you're running on an athlon64 then you haven't got much protection.

      Software protection against buffer overruns isn't very effective - especially the type in visual studio .net (which SP2 has been compiled with) - I've been using it for a while on my own software and it's completely useless against most types of buffer overrun (I'm not actually sure how to trigger it... it certainly doesn't work at all on overruns of stack data as I had a bug regarding that only last month - the software fell over a long way after the overrun).

    3. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by Nevo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may have overflowed the buffer, but I'd bet you weren't executing code in that buffer.

      That, if I understand correctly, is what DEP protects against. (Hence the acronym: data execution protection.)

    4. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by cookd · · Score: 1

      Here is a bit more info:

      On systems without hardware support for NX pages, DEP means that programs compiled with "Safe-SEH" enabled will have an check performed to verify that all exception handlers are valid (pre-registered).

      On systems with hardware support for NX pages, DEP means that a page must be marked as executable before any code in that page can be executed.

      Neither of these are the same as the /GS switch in newer Visual C++ compilers. (Not to be confused with the /Gs switch, which almost nobody should really ever be messing with anymore.) I suspect the grandparent poster is using /Gs, which is often confused with /GS (even in the MSDN documentation of the /Gs switch!).

      Pretty much everything in XP SP2 was recompiled with the /GS switch on, which means that stack buffer overruns in system libraries is much less likely.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    5. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by cookd · · Score: 1

      I suspect you're doing something wrong. The buffer overflow code works quite well, but I've seen two things that can go wrong with using it.

      First, make sure you're using the /GS flag, not the /Gs flag. The capital S makes all the difference, but is often confused.

      Second, the check only happens before the return from the function, and the error is raised only if the buffer overflowed to the return address. If the buffer overflow doesn't overwrite a return address, or if the function whose address was overwritten doesn't return, the buffer overflow detection will never trigger.

      That said, the compiler uses some heuristics to determine whether a function has a dangerous buffer or not, and I've seen a couple of cases where it decides that the function must be safe even when it isn't. There is definitely some room for improvement.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    6. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by dpletche · · Score: 3, Informative

      The DEP feature (buffer overrun protection) of XP SP2, or its equivalent in the Linux and BSD worlds, is only available if you are running a K8 based (Athlon 64, Opteron, etc.) processor from AMD. Intel CPUs do not feature hardware-based buffer overrun protection, so this feature is not available on Intel-based x86 systems.

    7. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      He's talking about ProPolice type compiler guards, not exec-shield type runtime guards.

    8. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Even though this kind of vulnerability is *extremely* bad, it's not as permanently dangerous as the ubiquitous "web-bugs" in web pages and email advertising, which use an off-site 1x1 pixel transparent gif in order to provide user tracking information to the other site. These help provide user tracking without cookies and can in fact be used to transmit passwords from phishing web sites by writing fascinatingly encoded URL's to grab the web bag, and can be used to pierce the anonymity of users who receive email.

      Nasty, nasty, nasty little widgets for which there are very few plans to block them. While blocking them by blocking "off-site" images is useful, it's easily defeated by writing Akamai's web-caching URL's instead of straight URL's. Since Akamai's web caching can't be blocked without messing up huge numbers of high-content websites, guess what "web content delivery" company also sells web-bug tracking services?

      Text-only browsers, man. If the web page doesn't work right with a text-only browser, it's done wrong and isn't worth visiting.

    9. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Sp2 Has both software and hardware dep. Buy a clue before you post.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    10. Re:this isn't the first image exploit by cookd · · Score: 1

      Did some research. The security cookie is used on a function if the following conditions hold true: The function must have a string array (char or wchar, int doesn't count) and the array must be "large enough" (larger than 4 or 8 bytes or so).

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  12. Untrusted data by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We're going to get burned over and over and over and then we will get burned some more by processing untrusted data (stuff off the net) using any language that has unsafe memory operations. This isn't just a Microsoft problem; we've seen the same problems in zlib (PNG), resulting in vulnerabilities in almost all Linux/Unix apps that handle graphics. We're going to keep seeing these problems until we start handling all unsafe data as if it's got a contagious disease, which means handling it in an isolated environment like a VM.

    ---------
    WAP software

    1. Re:Untrusted data by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, define trusted data. If you have a user, anything they produce should not be trusted. In other words, EVERYTHING is untrusted data. There's limits to how much you can sandbox and still run applications. Running every app in a VM with no access to any resources other than memory and the CPU wouldn't be a very useful environment. And anything else can't be trusted.

      Secondly, you would then have issues with security problems in the VM. You don't think that would be perfect either do you?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Untrusted data by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What'll go a long way to getting rid of buffer overflow exploits is execute-protected memory, which AFAIK AMD currently has, and Intel is playing catch-up to get. Stack/Heap memory is then non-execute enabled, and if you want to do something tricky like generate code on the fly, then you need to get the OS to allocate memory with execute permission set.

    3. Re:Untrusted data by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1
      which means handling it in an isolated environment like a VM

      You mean something like Microsoft's Next Gen Computing Base(NGCB), aka Trusted Computing?

    4. Re:Untrusted data by cthugha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That'll protect against most, but not all, buffer overflows. What it won't protect against are attacks that overwrite the stack and then write a return address to code that'll treat what's on the stack as arguments that make it do something nasty.

      Note that these attacks are only guaranteed to succeed if the attacker has access to the same binary as you. Building your own binaries with an obscure compiler (or at least different compiler options) may be of assistance here.

      IIRC Intel has always built execute protection into its IA32 processors, unless these contained a bug that caused them to ignore the state of a page's execute flag?

    5. Re:Untrusted data by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Ya I'm a girl - do you have a problem with it, bub?

      Erm... no... but thanks for asking.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    6. Re:Untrusted data by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      The processor should provide hardware memory protection. This has existed since the i386, and now with the NX flag in the selector, everything (on an x86 and not running Ring-0) technically *is* in a sandbox. Usermode (Ring-2) programs don't get to write to ports without checking permissions, they don't get to write to memory without checking permissions. Buffer overflows are pretty much the only way to execute arbitrary code, and proper NX usage ends that.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    7. Re:Untrusted data by msblack · · Score: 1
      Mainframe and minicomputers have had excellent hardware memory management schemes for decades. Look at the PDP11 or CDC Cyber, both primitive by today's standards yet each provided protection to prevent applications from overwriting the memory space of other applications or of program segments labeled CODE. That protection was in the hardware and not left to poorly-written applications. What's wrong with the state of CS education or these large corporations that prevents software engineers from performing a bounds check on each and every piece of data. Heck, the professors at my school teach that in the basic CS-101 course.

      Microsoft engineers assumed that users or applications wouldn't intentionally try to break the system. Proof: look at Win NT 3/4 which required the /WINNT/SYSTEM32 file and directory permissions to be write-all. Fundamental O/S concerns taught in any CS program assume that no user and no application can be trusted to behave properly. Why the "brilliant" architects at M/S failed to learn this is the real tragedy.

      --
      signature pending slashdot approval
    8. Re:Untrusted data by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      It would be a lot easier to rewrite the libraries in a safe language without pointers, like Java.

      No, I'm not joking. Using gcj and some fancy tricks you can compile Java to a C-ABI exporting native library.

      Or start doing what Microsoft are doing with SP2 and use a compiler with bounds checking canaries. There are patches to do this for gcc but I don't know why they aren't more widely used.

    9. Re:Untrusted data by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Mod me down as flamebait for this one

      we will get burned some more by processing untrusted data (stuff off the net) using any language that has unsafe memory operations

      True, but that compiler/interpreter for your language with safe memory operations is no doubt written in one of the unsafe languages. It's true that you're limiting the possible exploits, but when an interpreter has a buffer overrun you're back where you started. There are also other problems than buffer overruns that affect security, that have very little to do with "pointer magic".

      We're going to keep seeing these problems until we start handling all unsafe data as if it's got a contagious disease, which means handling it in an isolated environment like a VM.

      And the VM will have an exploit that can be used to overwrite and address here, move some instructions there, and back to where we started. Again, we have limited the possibility but not eliminated it.

      There are no fail-safe guarantees that something is going to be secure, no matter what language you're using, no matter what operating system, no matter how good a programmer the developer is. The problem is that we are only human, and no matter how good the API or the language, our own limited brain will make sure that we make mistakes.

    10. Re:Untrusted data by makomk · · Score: 1
      Of course, OS'es that weren't designed to take advantage of memory execute protection (e.g. all the x86 OS'es until recently, as the processors didn't support it) won't benefit. And it'll break some existing applications which load code and execute it - though to be quite honest, they're already broken on other architectures which have an execute-protection page flag.

      What worries me is the fact that, on *nix, the only way to allocate memory is from the heap or stack. What happens if you forget to change the page permissions back before you free the memory? (Windows has the VirtualAlloc/Free API functions, which allocate and free pages of virtual memory, so it's not going to be a problem there).

    11. Re:Untrusted data by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Its easier than that. Just use a language that supports static and/or dynamic array bounds checking. No new hardware is needed, and the performance hit is negligable when using an intelligent compiler or interpreter.

  13. Microsoft should give up on IE by blcamp · · Score: 5, Funny


    They should forget about Internet Explorer and try thier hand on a different line of sofware... ...like, say, e-voting.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Microsoft should give up on IE by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      The Diebold machines already run Windows CE.

    2. Re:Microsoft should give up on IE by kavau · · Score: 1
      Before I agree with you I'll first have to check towards what political direction script kiddies and h4x0rs are generally leaning.

      But speaking from my guts, I'd say I support your idea.

  14. Thank god for ASCII pr0n! by shawnce · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry folks you can still get your pr0n with out getting a social dease...

    www.asciipr0n.com

    1. Re:Thank god for ASCII pr0n! by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      How long until someone finds a flaw in the Microsoft ASCII renderer that lets an attacker run arbitrary code?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Thank god for ASCII pr0n! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That ain't Ascii porn, that's perl code!

      Wait, Hell, it's both!

    3. Re:Thank god for ASCII pr0n! by rsteele19 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just watch out for those nasty ANSI bombs...

      --

      This sig is umop apisdn.

  15. Pr0n by MastaBaba · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who said looking at Pr0n was safe?

  16. Spin Control by Wanker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS04-028.mspx:
    In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a malicious Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's site.


    I like the phrase "no way to force users to visit a malicious Web site". How many users have image views enabled in their mail client? How hard would it be for a shady advertiser or a hacked advertiser to include a malicous JPEG as a banner ad?
    1. Re:Spin Control by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      No kidding, websites have "forced" users to load popup pages for quite some time now: popup pages which install malicious sofware unto users' computers without their permission, via vulnerabilities in Windows' software.

      If that's not "forcing users to visit a malicious Web site", then what is??

  17. Old news by wigle · · Score: 1

    This exploit has been around for at least two years. I've heard of people getting owned through AIM direct connections in particular. While I'm sure it would be fun to play around with, I suspect most programs wouldn't be vulnerable anyways (Microsoft products aside).

    --
    ::wigle::
    1. Re:Old news by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was due to images, however.

      Look here - this appears to be the exploit you're thinking of.

  18. Re:bad by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

    ... you think?

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  19. Re:Damn It. by Portigui · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't trust outside data. Don't developers think of these things?
    Of course we think of things but it is never possible to think of every possible scenario when you are punching out applications with hundreds of thousands lines of code. An old college professor of mine once said: "There is no such thing as a perfect programmer. Those that think they are, are either a fool or a liar."
  20. You fool! by Evil_Way · · Score: 1

    You fool! Everybody knows that pr0n messes up your computer!

  21. AOL art files by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 2, Funny

    pfft...maybe now they'll fully support AOL's .art files. Serves them right.
    *ducks*

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  22. Aw, c'mon AC, RE: useless buzzword alert!!!! by flinxmeister · · Score: 4, Funny

    The parent post has been flagged for violation of the "Anti Buzzword Use Act". Specific violation: use of the phrase "attack vector".

    You're right, I should have said "Airpwn could leverage the synergies of this vulnerability and streamline the deployment...with or without interactive buy-in by stakeholders"

    Seriously, if you're going to be cute about buzzwords, at least wait until someone uses a real buzzword..."attack vector" is a real term and hasn't reached convergence in the buzzword mindshare yet.

  23. Pain in the ass to update by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While normally I shrug off most Slashdot anti-MS FUD, I've got to admit, this one's going to be a huge pain in the ass to rollout.

    Normally, I just read the whitepapers, run a test on a workstation then rollout a Windows update using the free SUS server. This one, I'm going to have to rollout the update (just for XP SP1 users), figure out an update plan for Office, figure out who actually uses those image programs, etc.

    And here's a question: SP2 isn't affected. Why didn't they rollout this fix in SP1 *before* rolling out SP2, if they clearly knew it needed fixing. Most companies I know (mine included) are in the middle of testing SP2 migration plans. This adds another wrinkle to the whole process.

    1. Re:Pain in the ass to update by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      Don't think that because SP2 wasn't affected that they necessarily patched it. All binaries in SP2 were recompiled with a new compiler that got rid of most buffer overflows. That is why SP2 isn't affected.

    2. Re:Pain in the ass to update by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Makes me glad we're still running Win2k, IE 5.01, and Office 2000 at work. 99% of our computers don't even have GDI+ installed.

      It pays to not upgrade, in more ways than one.

    3. Re:Pain in the ass to update by bushidocoder · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, SP2 doesn't fix the problem explicitly - rather the compiler-bounds checking for arrays prevents the bug which is still there in XP2 from being exploited.

  24. Linux has exactly the same vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Before you get too high and mighty, check this article from just 4 days ago.

    1. Re:Linux has exactly the same vulnerability by panda · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Not if you RTFA that you linked to. It's a different, though similar, vulnerability that affects the Imlib library and the LHA decompression library.

      --
      Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
  25. Not everybody likes tentacle porn by tepples · · Score: 1

    PNG is designed for compressing cartoon images. Though a lot can be found on the various hentai newsgroups and alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney, not everybody is into that.

    1. Re:Not everybody likes tentacle porn by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney is _NOT_ hentai. It's toon sex and it's yucky, low quality material.
      The high quality hentai pics don't compress well with PNG anyways, as they have soft shading which is very pleasant to watch.

      --
      ^_^
  26. Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before you get too high and mighty, check this article from just 4 days ago.

    1. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by simcop2387 · · Score: 3, Informative

      first of all that article talks about a specific implementation of LHA (LHA is an old compression alg that i don't think anyone uses anymore), and imlib and as the article says its ALREADY FIXED, just upgrade imlib and unlha

      and neither of these are linux, linux is the kernel.

    2. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "and neither of these are linux, linux is the kernel. "

      I like how this argument comes up like it settles the whole thing, even though we all know what is meant. If MS can be sued, then the programmers working on Linux distros should be vulnerable, too.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      If MS can be sued, then the programmers working on Linux distros should be vulnerable, too.

      Call me biased, but I think that as FOSS code comes with source code (and thus a customer is able to independently determine for himself whether any given package is securely implemented), there is a case for making software that comes with source code exempt from any such litigation, and especially so if no money changes hands.

      Of course, Microsoft and all the other vendors of proprietary software wouldn't like it that way. :-]

      Finally, part of the value distro vendors provide is QA. Conceivably, they would still be liable if found to be negligent in their QA process.

      --

    4. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by Krunch · · Score: 1

      A better comparison would probably be the libpng flaw (also seen on Slashdot). However it has nothing to do with Linux itself but most (all?) Linux distros use it as well as some Windows and Mac programs (Mozilla is one of them).

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    5. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by tvynr · · Score: 1

      I would have no problem with such an exemption if no money changed hands. However, it's not as if every open-source software user has the time required to security check everything they use. In the event that an individual pays for a specific service (such as the use of a JPEG processor) and the service is not rendered correctly (such as the JPEG processor executing arbitrary code on the machine in question), the individuals who originally promised to render the service should be held responsible and should repair this problem at their own expense. It works that way in other industries. Really.

    6. Re:Why doesn't someone sue LINUX? by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      In the event that an individual pays for a specific service (such as the use of a JPEG processor) and the service is not rendered correctly (such as the JPEG processor executing arbitrary code on the machine in question), the individuals who originally promised to render the service should be held responsible and should repair this problem at their own expense. It works that way in other industries. Really.

      I'm not aware of any distro vendor that keeps their errata secret (though Red Hat do "only" provide src.rpms for their RHEL errata). On the other hand, one of the things that used to annoy me when I was supporting users of expensive security software was that the patches would be inseparably combined remedial fixes mixed with new features. As a result, the manufacturers wouldn't let me give the patches to customers without a (expensive) current support contract, even if they had a support contract when they bought the flawed software. That's BS, IMNSHO.

      --

  27. Re:Popups on ./ by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

    sounds like you've got ad-ware.. is this on IE? if so then nothings off-limits, if not IE then thats just weird..

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  28. Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny

    You don't allocate a buffer of fixed length unless you're lazy. You find out how long the input is, allocate a buffer big enough to fit then move the input to the buffer. When you're done you deallocate the buffer. Simple, safe and easy. I guess Micro$oft coders never learned how to practice safe hex.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by Saige · · Score: 1

      Well, gee, then surely you would never, ever, ever write code that was susceptible to a buffer overflow, would you? Care to post up all the code you've ever written, so we can test it all and make sure that you can't get a buffer overflow out of any of it?

      I was in a talk not that long ago about security, and there was plenty of discussion about buffer overflows, and various ways they can happen. I saw a lot of examples, some of them very obscure. Not a single one had anything to do with simply allocating a buffer of fixed length.

      BTW, your bash on MS programmers was also completely uncalled for. Check around and see how many buffer overflow issues have been found in various UNIX and Linux software packages. I'll give you a hint - the number found in non-MS programs is not zero, and is far from it.

      Don't bash if you don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    2. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I doubt you'd find any in code I've written, for two reasons. First, I've been stuck in tech support so long that little if any of my code would still be in uses and second, most of it was reading records of known length from files. I did, however, learn the right way to handle variable-length input many years ago.

      My M$ bashing wasn't meant to imply that they're the only ones doing it, just that almost every time I hear of a buffer exploit, it's NanoLimp related. I'm not a Linux bigot, nor anti-Redmond fanatic, I'm just realistic about their blind spots, and buffer sizes seem to be one of them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Really? And what do you do if allocating a buffer big enough to fit the entire input would exceed the available memory on the machine?

      And how would you take in that input anyway? If you're talking about that much, you're going to take it in one chunk at a time, so the size isn't important, and you'll know your buffer's big enough.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by Euler · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you often don't know how much buffer a function call will require. If a function expects a buffer to be passed in (as a reference), then it is essentially a fixed buffer whether you created it using myBuff[100] or malloc(100*sizeof(someDataType)). That is often the problem C programmers face and there isnt a good solution if the code you are forced to use is crappily designed.

      The correct ways of handing off a buffer are one of the following:

      1.) dont use crappy function calls like the above for any reason. If that is what was handed to you, complain.

      2.) In C++, use a CString, assuming the function you are calling supports it.

      3.) Only use function calls that support a counted buffer of some type:
      a.) Some function calls expect to be called twice, or have a helper function - once to get the exact buffer length, then again (once you have created that buffer) to fill it.
      b.) only use the strn versions of a function, where You specifiy the length of the buffer.
      c.) You could pass in a null terminated buffer, but only if the buffer would never contain a zero other than the terminator, and that you know that the function you call will check for that terminator, and never over-run it. Best to avoid this. This function would also have to somehow tell you that it needs to be called again to get any remaining data.

      But the parent is correct: Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders. Coders who assume that an input will be of a certain length, or 'should probably never be longer than this big number I just picked' are crappy programmers, and are not worth their salt. It is tedious to write code properly, and requires disipline, review, and testing. Not something most managers want to deal with either.

    5. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Informative
      second, most of it was reading records of known length from files. I did, however, learn the right way to handle variable-length input many years ago.

      Isn't that one of the classic ways a buffer-overflow condition can exist? You're not bothering to check the actual length of your input; you're assuming it will be within bounds.

      First rule of secure programming: don't trust the input.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Yes, thinking your input is "known length" is a classic way to get overruns. However, in one case they were cardimages: 80 byte records mimicing punched cards and produced as the output of another program. In another case, I was reading in characters one by one as part of validation; I never needed to bring in a whole record at once.

      Back when I was first learning coding, in assembler for an IBM 1620, one of my fellow students loved to try to overrun buffers by typing long strings of gibberish instead of the few characters asked for. (There was no way to limit input; the machine took in everything until you hit Enter.) We quickly learned to make sure there was nothing after the input buffer Just In Case.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by mgt · · Score: 1

      Not completely true. Dynamic allocation is not necessarily the answer. What you want to make sure is that you don't overwrite your fixed-length buffer by doing strcpy,memcpy on inputdata without setting the length to a max of your buffer.

      Stack allocation is faster, why shouldn't i use it when i know what i'm doing :)

    8. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      Some function calls expect to be called twice, or have a helper function - once to get the exact buffer length, then again (once you have created that buffer) to fill it.

      Of course, even that must be used with care. In some cases this is a safe approach -- usually only when the result is only dependent on some other parameter passed to the function. However, if the function gets data from elsewhere (getting the caption of a button, for example) you have to be careful to make sure nothing else changes the data between you making the count call and making the real call.

      This can be mitigated to a certain extent by having the helper function and specifying the buffer length in the real call, having the library warn you somehow if the data wasn't the length you expected.

      Passing in a buffer was the norm in C, but since C++ now has (theoretically) standardized allocation and freeing of memory when using a purely C++ library it might well be safe just to return a buffer and have the caller delete it later. Of course, once you commit to doing this you commit to only using new to create objects/buffers and tie yourself to a particular compiler/runtime-library combo if you are shipping binaries, which is normally more pain than it's worth.

    9. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that works too. The few times I've needed to deal with variable input, dynamic allocation was the way we went, so I'm used to thinking of it.

      As another example of doing things because that's the first way you did them, Back at JPL with Dan Alderson we often stored data in linked lists because Dan liked them. I still tend to use them out of habit.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:Buffer overflows are caused by lazy coders by Saige · · Score: 1

      The thing is that there are a few ways to handle variable-length buffers that eliminate all buffer overruns. There are hundreds of ways to handle them that allow for possible overruns. And the differences between the two groups can be extremely, extremely minor.

      And all it takes is the tiniest of holes, and people can exploit it. There are even buffer overflow exploits that have been found for code compiled under a system that adds some pretty robust overflow checking means to the compiled code, and also for code running on a system that disables execution in data area. Seriously. I've seen the examples.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  29. Remember the days? by Garabito · · Score: 5, Funny
    When you tought you couldn't get a virus by opening a document in a word processor?

    Microsoft made it possible.


    When you assumed you couldn't get attacked by loading a web page?

    Microsoft made it possible, too.


    When you sweared you couldn't get infected just by receiving e-mail?

    Microsoft made it possible, again.



    And now, by the very same people who gave you all that...


    The JPEG parser vulnerability!!!


    God, this company has really brought innovation to the industry!

    1. Re:Remember the days? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How could you forget Microsoft's BMP vulnerability?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  30. How is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before you get too high and mighty, check this article from just 4 days ago.

    1. Re:How is this better? by imroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, wow. A bug in the decoding of RLE-encoded Windows BMP files, and another in decompressing LHA archives. That'll really affect a lot of people.

      </sarcasm>

      I think I'm still pretty safe up here all high and mighty. Got any other obscure bugs you want to blow out of proportion?

  31. Why can't MS link to patch from Update page? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Try getting the patch without using Windows Update. Can be done, but they don't make it easy. No help here

    Update's too slow over dial up, and Comcast and Qwest already get too much of my money.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Why can't MS link to patch from Update page? by tvynr · · Score: 1

      Y'know, if this were such a big deal, Microsoft could put change the Microsoft logo on their website to contain and execute the patch...

  32. It just makes me shudder... by freshtonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... at the horrendous software implementation errors that people are still making in this day and age. *There is no reason for buffer overflows to happen* . Every PC bought in the last five years (at least) is fast enough to bounds check every array / buffer access for all but the most performance-driven applications. Loading a JPEG from a stream is IO-bound enough for bounds checking to be negligible.

    From what I read, I gather that buffer overflows account for a large portion of all platform vulnerabilties - Intel & AMD have even implemented a 'no execute' feature in their latest CPUs to go someway to counteract this. I see this as useful, but perhaps overkill - it is *simple* to avoid buffer overflows and the 'no execute' feature could potentially impede devlopment of programs that generate code on the fly (such as Java VMs). The low-level programmers that have been developing C for 20 years just need re-educating. Somebody should tell them computers run at more than 8mhz now...

    (That last comment is not meant to be taken too seriously)

    1. Re:It just makes me shudder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Gees! You have no idea what you are talking about.

      That would make it really slow. We are not just talking about a few buffers. There are tons of them while rendering a JPEG.

      I use various bounds checker while I am working with debug code... It sooo slow. It is turned of in release mode for a reason. Even still the bound checker doesn't catch everything.

    2. Re:It just makes me shudder... by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Loading a JPEG from a stream is IO-bound enough for bounds checking to be negligible.
      Just because something is IO-bound doesn't mean that it is impervious to bounds checking.

      There was a recent case where there was another bug with an image display system. The problem had to do with incorrect bounds checking, where the file with a negative value in the header would allow execution of arbitrary code.

      Also, I'm working with a file format where it is very easy to have an omitted bounds checker allow for a crash (giving a reference of '-1' in the file will cause the program to access memory just before the block of memory that was allocated for some data.) Missing this form of bounds checking isn't a major implementation error, as it is generally assumed that a malformed file would fail to load anyway - especially if bounds checking is pervailent throught outher sections of the program.

      Something like this is merely a minor oversight. It can happen in Linux and other open source software, even it happens to be very subtle.
    3. Re:It just makes me shudder... by rush22 · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm working with a file format where it is very easy to have an omitted bounds checker allow for a crash (giving a reference of '-1' in the file will cause the program to access memory just before the block of memory that was allocated for some data.)

      (snip) Something like this is merely a minor oversight

      Let's see here. Data unknown, could be any number. If the number is -1, program will fail. "IF a > 0" anyone?

    4. Re:It just makes me shudder... by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the grandparent post was that the time taken to bounds check when reading a jpeg is negligible, considering that the bottleneck is likely to be I/O.

    5. Re:It just makes me shudder... by freshtonic · · Score: 1

      Er, yes I do know what I am talking about! You should run your own code through a profiler and I assure you, bounds checking is NOT where your performance problem is. Turning the bounds checking off in release mode accomplishes NOTHING. Get over it.

    6. Re:It just makes me shudder... by freshtonic · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of things in software that are trivial to implement correctly. The problem is not difficulty but getting rid of laziness and false beliefs (performance problems with bounds checking). Implementing bounds checking is inherently an if test that operates on the known upper and lower bounds and an index that may or may not be within that range. If that is too difficult for a developer to comprehend then they can F**K off and go home. They don't deserve a job. Seriously, give me a break!

    7. Re:It just makes me shudder... by freshtonic · · Score: 1

      Just because something is IO-bound doesn't mean that it is impervious to bounds checking.

      Maybe I wasn't clear, but that was not was I meant to imply. The only situation I can think of where it is may be considered worthwhile to omit bounds checking is when performance is imperative, BUT this performance hit is small compared to the delays caused by IO anyway (such as when reading a stream from a socket or a file). Even so , in my devlopment experience of > 10 years I have *never* seen a situation where bounds checking has caused a performance problem of even a detectable change in performance.

      Whenever I have developed in languages that do not support automatic bounds checking, I encapsulate array so that it can only be access through a mechanism that performs bounds checking. The actual array is not visible to any other part of the code at build time, so the other code cannot bypass this mechanism

  33. This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by null+etc. · · Score: 5, Funny
    Todd Walters, remember 12 years ago in college when I told you that an exploit could theoretically take control of an operating system due to a flaw in the library that renders static graphics? And you said that no, only code that has a chance of executing can lead to exploits?

    I Told You So.

    BTW if you see this leave me a post, I haven't heard from you in 12 years and I don't know where you are.

    1. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, sounds like sooommmeone got served!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by nuttyprofessor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not Todd Walters, but does anyone know
      ****HOW**** code embedded in the image
      gets executed?

      No one is giving any technical details.
      Toooo much ****NOISE****, not enough ****INFO****.

    3. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1593 270070/qid=1095209608/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/104-2507909-9190336?v=glance&s=books&n=5078 46

      Reading the buffer overflow section of the book I linked will answer ALL your questions. It's a very good book.

      Here's a very quick explanation: Due to a buffer overflow in the jpeg parser, the stack gets overwritten. If the stack is overwritten by a carefully crafted messsage, it will make the CPU jump to the address of where malicious code is and it gets executed. The book explains things in a LOT more detail with source code example.

      I don't usually try to advertise stuff, but I really enjoyed this book. Anyone that wants to know how exploits work, should read it.

    4. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know the specifics here, but I can speculate.

      They start loading the file and pretty much ask it "How big are you"? The file says something like -1. They then say ok, I need -1 memory so lets allocate -1 memory. They then proceed to turn over "ownership" of the entire computer to the image file. They then ask the file "Ok, so where does the next peice of the picture go?". The file then says "Ohhhh, why don't you clobber the most important thing in memory and put the 'picture' there!". The computer then proceeds to grab its next instruction, which now happens to come from the middle of the 'picture'. It just jumps into the middle of the picture as it it were an EXE file.

      There are different variations, the stack, the heap, whatever. But that's the general idea.

      In some ways it's really stupid for them to accept insane instructions from the picture like that, but on the other hand it's a semi-common and almost reasonable/lazy error. But no matter how you cut it, it is exactly the sort of thing they should have specifically looked for and it's appalling that they allowed it into the shipping product. They did the same sort of thing with bitmap files, they did the same sort of thing with media player files, the same sort of thing all over the place in reading e-mail files, they did in in gopher, they did it all over the browser, they did it freaking everywhere.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by zygote · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Microsoft's idea of good programming practices: efficient re-use of code.

      --
      the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed - w. gibson
    6. Re:This post is only directed towards Todd Walters by btg · · Score: 1

      Specifics:

      The comment section in a JPG image can have a length. The smallest valid length is 2 (no comments, but the field is still 2 bytes wide).

      If you manually make this length 0 then the length gets normalised by subtracting 2 to -2, which, when converted ends up as 0xfffffffe, ie a very big number.

      That number eventually gets passed to memcpy, which totally clobbers the heap. After that, the actual exploitation gets long and complex. If you know a lot about windows memory management structures, just look up the guy's advisory (not the MS one) then check out some books on exploiting heap overflows.

      These kinds of hard-to-automatically-check integer errors are the root cause for lots of vulnerabilities these days, as vanilla stack buffer overflows decline.

  34. Re:Oh my god by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ohh man I hope the first virus/worm/trojan based on this has is named after an STD.

    I was surfing porn and got herpies.

    That would be soooo funny.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  35. Every hole in Windows... by dacarr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Every hole in Windows seems to constitute the following:

    A buffer overflow can be used to execute arbitrary code

    ...or is that just me?

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:Every hole in Windows... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      While Microsoft has buffer overflows practically everywhere it's even possible to have buffer overflows, Microsoft is equal-opportunity for every class of bug in existance, plus a few new kinds of bug they invented themselves. For example a feature designed to allow data files to launch arbitrary Microsoft system code may be redirected to launch arbitrary code of the attacker's choice with no buffer overflow at all.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Every hole in Windows... by varjag · · Score: 1

      I blame code reuse.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  36. [OT] Speaking of Parsing JPEGs... by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there anykind of a browser plug-in I could use to deciper steganographically enhanced JPEG images that might just come over plain old unsuspicious unencrypted http?

    GIFs were evil, PNG support lacked transparency, now JPEGs can cause buffer overflows - I'd say that IE has an image problem... Excuse me while I just run away now.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:[OT] Speaking of Parsing JPEGs... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Is there anykind of a browser plug-in I could use to deciper steganographically enhanced JPEG images"

      With this new vulnerability, you could have steganographic JPEGs which popup the message in a dialog-box - no need for any special decryption software to be installed!

  37. more interesting than you think by kiskoa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Managed code - in this case .NET - is inherently secured against buffer underruns and code injection, until the VM or and the external components used by the framework do not have buffer underrin bugs.

    And that's just what happened. .NET Framework is heavily dependent on GDI+. Now you can use a managed software to hack the system.

    --
    If Yoda so strong in Force is, why words in right order he cannot put?
  38. no way to force you to open a jpeg? by Risto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There is no way for an attacker to force a user to open a malicious file."

    This has got to be one of the stupidest things MS has ever said.

    It's called spam!!!
    99.999% of email programs and browsers automatically "open" images for viewing

    We all get spam
    the image can be a logo or something nonsuspicious
    embedded in the email

    So you only have to read the email
    to get infected

    1. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by awehttam · · Score: 1
      And this is why I use evolution which does not display images in Email automatically.

      Oh wait.. ;)

    2. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by tommasz · · Score: 1

      Mail programs and browsers do allow you to turn image expansion off, but in this case all it does it postpone the attack unless they've configured Windows to use an image viewer that doesn't use the affected code.

      "Pay me now, or pay me later."

    3. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      99.999% of email programs and browsers automatically "open" images for viewing

      No 99% percent of email client installations do because they're either MS Outlook or MS Outlook Express. Pretty much nobody else is that stupid. Any OTHER client that I've ever used either doesn't do it, or give you the option to disable it.
      I would daresay the morjoirty of the actual programs out there actually AREN'T retarded, it just that everyone seems to have standardized on one of the few packages that is.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    4. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      What happens when an "example" of this image ends up being posted on a blog, and subsequently picked up by google.

      When it hits google news' front page, its all over.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by mwillems · · Score: 4, Informative

      No longer true: after applying SP2, Outlook express by default does NOT show email images.

      Michael

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    6. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by mwillems · · Score: 1

      Exactly, which is why it is now disabled by default. They listened, only a few years late.

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    7. Re:no way to force you to open a jpeg? by shabble · · Score: 1
      Or simply stop IE (and as a consequence Outlook) from displaying images. Put a shortcut to the following vbs on your IE Toolbar
      'togglepics.vbs
      ' Toggles show images
      '**Start Encode**
      On error resume next

      Set Sh = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
      key = "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\"
      images = "Display Inline Images"
      videos = "Display Inline Videos"
      animations = "Play_Animations"
      sounds = "Play_Background_Sounds"

      val = sh.Regread(key & images)

      if sh.Regread(key & images) = "no" then
      wscript.echo "Multimedia enabled"
      sh.RegWrite key & images, "yes", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & videos, "yes", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & animations, "yes", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & sounds, "yes", "REG_SZ"
      else
      wscript.echo "Multimedia disabled"
      sh.RegWrite key & images, "no", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & videos, "no", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & animations, "no", "REG_SZ"
      sh.RegWrite key & sounds, "no", "REG_SZ"
      end if

      WScript.Quit
  39. hmm... by Grell · · Score: 1

    Looks dangerous...

    ~G

    (sorry couldn't resist)

    --
    ...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
  40. Sexy virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the next Anna Kournikova virus will actually be a picture of Anna Kournikova

    1. Re:Sexy virus by cyroth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry but I fail to see a problem with this

  41. Sorry... by keiferb · · Score: 5, Funny

    On Microsoft products, porn screws YOU!

    1. Re:Sorry... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      As cruel as it sounds, "rapes" is probably going to be more accurate. How many more zombie machines are we going to see...?

  42. Re:Aw, c'mon AC, RE: useless buzzword alert!!!! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
    Seriously, if you're going to be cute about buzzwords, at least wait until someone uses a real buzzword..."attack vector" is a real term and hasn't reached convergence in the buzzword mindshare yet.
    Okay... : )
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  43. Re:Damn It. by echeslack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope now that png, mp3, and jpg decoders have had vulnerabilities people will be a little more careful in the future.

    It isn't necessarily about being careful. If people were that careful about writing all their software, software would take ages to finish writing.

    And even then there would still be security flaws. I think the saying about bugs goes something like "Any non-trivial program has at least one bug." I think the same could probably be said for security vulnerabilities.

    Sure, we probably shouldn't be seeing buffer overflow exploits anymore considering the amount of attention they have gotten, but it isn't necessarily worth it to go back and review all your code just to find one type of vulnerability when others will be found eventually anyway.

  44. Source Leak? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A while ago, there was a source leak and someone found a vulnerability in the BMP shell. Is this related to the same thing?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  45. Go No Execute Bit! by LordSah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you've got SP2 and an AMD64 chip, this is one great reason to use the no execute bit. I'll assume GDI+ won't mark picture data as executable.

    1. Re:Go No Execute Bit! by dranga · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to have CPU's start having their stack grow in the other direction? If I rememeber right, the problem occurs when a buffer on the stack overflows, and writes into the previous stack frame and address pointer, since the stack grows downward in memory.

      If the stack grew upwards in memory, you'd have to write an insane amount of data to wrap around and reach the last frame, and you'd run out of bounds long before that. That could still allow for executable stack areas as well.

      If I rememeber right, that's how HP's PA-RISC chips behave...

      --
      Oh no, not again.
  46. Wow, I mean seriously, wow by Ridgelift · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft rates the flaw "important" for many of its products, but "critical" for Outlook versions 2002 and 2003, Internet Explorer 6 with Service Pack 1, Windows XP and Windows XP with Service Pack 1, Windows Server 2003, and the .Net Framework 1.0 with Service Pack 2 and .Net Framework 1.1, according to the Security Bulletin.

    Isn't it interesting that when Microsoft is fighting court cases, Internet Explorer is consider "part of the operating system". But in this case they make the distinction between products, so that this flaw is "important" for one piece and "critical" for another.

    It's clear to me that Windows, Office and other related Microsoft products are simply unrepairable. And I don't buy that arguement that it's because they've got the biggest market share that these problems are made known. If that's the case, then how come Apache with over 60% of the market and millions of installations is not fraught with as many defects as Microsoft products?

    Solution: Microsoft has to open source their code. It will never happen, but they've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't fix their own code.

    1. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by swissmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's clear to me that Windows, Office and other related Microsoft products are simply unrepairable. And I don't buy that arguement that it's because they've got the biggest market share that these problems are made known. If that's the case, then how come Apache with over 60% of the market and millions of installations is not fraught with as many defects as Microsoft products?

      Go compare the number of vulnerabilities in IIS6 and Apache 2, you'll be very surprised.

    2. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Informative


      Go compare the number of vulnerabilities in IIS6 and Apache 2, you'll be very surprised.


      How can I do a comparison - is there any website doing such a comparison?

    3. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by swissmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go to securityfocus.com, they track vulnerabilities reports.

    4. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "If that's the case, then how come Apache with over 60% of the market and millions of installations is not fraught with as many defects as Microsoft products?"

      Go compare the number of vulnerabilities in IIS6 and Apache 2, you'll be very surprised.


      number of known vulnerabilities = number of vulnerabilities * amount of testing

      more testing = more known vulnerabilities (unless the software has few defects)

    5. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes but compare the damage done via Apache vs the damage and manhours lost because of IIS. This is like when people point out 20 non threatening Red Hat advisories in one month vs 5 devastating world crippling bugs for XP in a month and say "see XP has less security problems!". Sorry but quantity doesn't tell much. Even at 10 times as many security advisories as IIS Apache will continue to be a better more secure less dangerous solution.

    6. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Feel free to also compare the severity of the flaws between IIS6 and Apache 2.

      There's a simple fact, and this fact is that IIS6 had less vulnerabilities than Apache 2, and they were less severe.

    7. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Which explains why Windows / IE / ... have more known vulnerabilities, exactly my point.

    8. Re:Wow, I mean seriously, wow by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised at all by the numbers, but that is because I feel a little differently about problems in open source software.

      1) doesn't matter what you use, they all have loads of vulnerabilities, there is a great deal of security through obscurity that helps "some" OSS but not all.

      2)I could honestly believe the number of errors could be the same between any MS product and OSS product of equal complexity, but you have to go searching.

      3) So why do I use as much OSS as possible? simple actually. MS finds a major flaw in its program, it tells you about it and hten says, now wait till we feel like fixing it. They already decided its not a good marketing idea to release fixes as soon as possible and that rather, once a month makes the company look more secure(actually the exact opposite). In OSS, if there is an error, you have many people going at the problem trying to harden the code and then, as soon as it gets looked at for compatibility, its out there for everyone to take.

      Frankly, the customer service of OSS who I do not pay has always beaten the hell out of MS, who I have had to pay directly or indirectly many times. I think the reason IIS6 might be more secure or come across better is that it is more obscure than apache and because MS actually has to compete with a strong force in the industry they can be just as good as OSS. I don't think OSS is fundamentally better, I Think competition is fundamentally better.

  47. Feel Better? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft? After all people sue companies all the time even if the product in question has warning labels.

    WARNING: The Programmer General has determined that this product may include Microsoft Code which has been proven to be harmful to Aardvarks, Ants, Bears, Boars, Cats, Bats, Dogs, Hogs, Elephants, Antelops, Pheasants, Ferrets, Giraffes, Gazelles, Stoats, Goats, Shoats, Ostriches, Lions, Jackals, Mustrats, Minks, Dingoes, Zebras, Foxes, Boxes, Octopus, Penguins, People, Warthogs, Yaks, Gnus, Newts, Walrus AND ESPECIALLY RABBITS!! Use at your own risk.

    So all those times you told your parents/friends that looking at images was safe - well, not anymore."

    If there was a way to do it wrong, Microsoft seems to have found it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  48. Just plain crappy by maximilln · · Score: 1

    Many years ago, back when operating systems were worth using, processing an invalid data file would cause the processing to stop or the application to crash, at worst.

    When did applications become so slipshod that a error in the data stream can turn into executable code? I realize this sort of thing comes out on Linux, as well. It always makes me wonder how long this has been sitting in someone's 0-day folder and being used on the unwitting populance.

    They say that most exploits are of already acknowledged vulnerabilities. Why does no one acknowledge that, if a black hat is good enough to find a bug they haven't, the black hat is also good enough to cover his trail while he's pwning everyone?

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    1. Re:Just plain crappy by Saige · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing has changed in the way applications are programmed that now allows this to happen. What has happened is that people have just become more skilled in manupulating such situations. The possibilities were always there, it's just been more recent that people have been able to take advantage of them - and made such errors more visible.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    2. Re:Just plain crappy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I disagree somewhat. There are things that have changed in the way applications are developed today vs. the way they were developed prior to the advent of sophisticated GUI-based operating systems. We depend on ever more complicated development tools over which we have less and less control. No matter how carefully we craft own own code, it doesn't make any difference in the end: we're totally dependent upon the work of thousands of other programmers, any one of whom may have left a hole.

      Ultimately, I think it's really a result of extreme code bloat resulting from a market-driven approach to software development. When you get right down to it, from a productivity standpoint (and I don't mean watching videos and playing games) people do pretty much the same things with their computers today as they did a decade or more ago. But given the heavy emphasis by Microsoft (and others) on adding features to make each software generation more "advanced" and hence more marketable, operating system and application complexity is now orders of magnitude more complicated that it was just a few short years ago. This just provides room for a. more mistakes to be made and b. more opportunities to exploit said mistakes.

      There have always been people willing and able to turn vulnerabilities into exploits, but prior to the opening of the Internet it was difficult to deliver an exploit to a target. Yes, people did propagate virii via floppy disks and shareware, but it was a painfully inefficient process. Nowadays, the Internet connects every one of those bastards to every one of us.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Just plain crappy by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, I think it's really a result of extreme code bloat resulting from a market-driven approach to software development. When you get right down to it, from a productivity standpoint (and I don't mean watching videos and playing games) people do pretty much the same things with their computers today as they did a decade or more ago. But given the heavy emphasis by Microsoft (and others) on adding features to make each software generation more "advanced" and hence more marketable, operating system and application complexity is now orders of magnitude more complicated that it was just a few short years ago. This just provides room for a. more mistakes to be made and b. more opportunities to exploit said mistakes.

      That's my thought as well. I don't know why the apologist got modded insightful while you (who answered correctly), and I (who posed the question) got nothing.

      Yes, people did propagate virii via floppy disks and shareware, but it was a painfully inefficient process.

      And, in those days, a malicious data file would cause an app to produce bad output or just crash. There was no execution of arbitrary code from data files.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    4. Re:Just plain crappy by Saige · · Score: 1

      And, in those days, a malicious data file would cause an app to produce bad output or just crash. There was no execution of arbitrary code from data files.

      Remember, just because nobody exploited such apps does not mean that such a thing was possible. The fact that an app would crash on a bad data file tells us that it was extremely likely that the data was attempting to be executed. People just hadn't really figured out how to use that to run arbitrary code at that point.

      It's recently been spread around that Kryptonite U-locks that use cylindrical keys can very easily be picked - thus that those locks should be treated as useless. Does this mean that they recently made a change that made this possible? Nope - someone tested a 15 year old lock, and it was just as vunerable. Just that nobody (or very few) knew how to pick them then.

      I bet if we went back and started trying to manipulate those 'old apps' you mention with carefully crafted data files, we'd find they are vunerable, and don't merely 'crash' in all cases.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    5. Re:Just plain crappy by maximilln · · Score: 1

      People just hadn't really figured out how to use that to run arbitrary code at that point

      I see it differently. Back in those days the overall systems were so much simpler. ML programming was much more common. People wrote programs in ML rather than writing in a high level language and then compiling. It would've been much more obvious how to insert executable code into a faulty data file _IF_ it were possible to get that data into memory space that would get processed as stack instructions. I don't think it's true that it was possible but no one had considered doing it. Computer programmers have always been tinkerers at heart. If they could've used a faulty data file to pop funny little messages to each other they would have. Something has inherently changed in the OS design and the quality of apps which allows for a faulty data file to inject its payload into executable memory.

      Maybe it's a problem inherent in the complexity of today's systems. At that point I wonder if the complexity is necessary. As others have pointed out the consumer doesn't really do anything more with their computer now than they did 10 years ago. The most likely culprit, to me, is that featureware has advanced faster than quality for purely profit motivated purposes.

      It's recently been spread around that Kryptonite U-locks that use cylindrical keys can very easily be picked

      That's not recent. It was known the day they came out. Just like the unbreakable DVD encryption, or the unbeatable hard drive protection. The day it comes out someone figures out a way around it. If we want to follow the analogy, however, to me it's like someone came up with a complex pretzel-shaped Kryptonite lock which they marketed well (based upon the space-age polymer and the mathematically optimized design) but didn't bother to do the math to figure out that there was a right or left handed twist which allowed the entire thing to be undone in a moment. How about a thousand kryptonite locks which are all locked around the neck of a quick-release seat?

      I bet if we went back and started trying to manipulate those 'old apps' you mention with carefully crafted data files, we'd find they are vunerable, and don't merely 'crash' in all cases

      I don't believe so. If we could go back and do a severe analysis of applications on Apple ][s, C=64s, Atari 2600s, Amigas, early Macs, 286/386 based early DOS machines, or even some ancient *NIX systems, I would wager that the ratio of code faults:arbitrary code execution is _MUCH_ lower. Extreme programmers have always been troubleshooting bugs and doing line-by-line execution analysis even of assembler code. Still, throughout the 80s and early 90s, malicious code was spread inside executables or boot sectors. I've been hearing music files hiccup, pics quit decoding halfway through, or text files come up with garbled characters for decades. If a programmer could've turned that into an exploit, they would have.

      I'm talking about a ratio of code faults:exploitable faults. I don't consider a BSOD, a guru meditation error, or a hard lockup to be an exploit. In today's world, however, I look at every fault as an exploitable fault. Something big has changed in the way programmers are taught or the way they proofread their work.

      I feel the responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of the people who have pushed for more nifty features without asking if they were sacrificing quality (security). To stick with the kryptonite lock analogy, the marketing people have been selling the Krytonite locks before waiting for the manufacturer to verify the quality of the material, only to find out through later stress testing that any kid with a ball-peen hammer can snap the neck at the hinge region.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  49. FireFox? by venomkid · · Score: 1

    So, this is probably an obvious question, but hell, let's get it out there...

    Does this affect Firefox?

    --
    vk.
  50. Oh Dear God No by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

    This is bad...Very bad... I usually am not an alamist, just keep things up to date and everything will work out. This allows some many routes of exploitation - just wait for the script kiddies to work their magic.

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
  51. Interesting Parallel by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    You make more money working for Microsoft than against them.

    s/Microsoft/Government/

    You hear a tinny voice off in the distance say, "That's not a bug, that's a feature."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  52. SP2 is not affected by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sp2 is not affected. It smells like the new compiler switch avoided the flaw. One more reason to install SP2 to your friends & parents...

  53. Re:Damn It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "No program is perfect,"
    They said with a shrug.
    "The client is happy!
    What's one little bug?"

    But he was determined.
    The others went home.
    He dug out the flowchart,
    Deserted, alone.

    Night passed into morning.
    The room was cluttered
    With memory dumps, microfiche...
    "I'm close!" he muttered.

    Chain smoking, cold coffee,
    Logic, deduction...
    "I've got it!" he cried.
    "Just change one instruction!"

    Then change two. Then three.
    As year followed year,
    Strangers would comment,
    "Is that guy still here?"

    He died at the console
    Of hunger and thirst.
    Next day he was buried
    Face down, nine edge first.

    His wife, through her tears,
    Accepted his fate,
    Saying, "He's not really gone -
    He's just working late."

  54. Re:Damn It. by mattrumpus · · Score: 1


    that's funny, my college professor said the same thing about masturbation...

    the big question is - "is there a link?"

    --
    Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
  55. Aw MAN! by rincebrain · · Score: 1

    So first, I can't have sex, because there's no such thing as safe sex.

    Now I can get a virus from downloading porn!?

    Next you'll be telling me that I can't watch VHS tapes, because they'll inject malicious things into my proprietary bits. ...and with that, I hide.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  56. Re:Are you dumb? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Bad guess. I first started programming in 1969. Back then, the way to avoid buffer overflows was to put your buffer at the end of the program so there was nothing to be overwritten. Not really practical today, of course, but the basic idea of protecting your code from overflows if you can still applies.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  57. Re:Todd Waters Here by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Funny

    He doesn't want to know. He's looking for a Todd Walters.

    Nice try for a troll, but you might want to spell your own name correctly next time.... :-)

  58. 10yrs ago: "viruses from email? naww!" Now? by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Well, at least you can rest assured that, at the worst, it's your *computer* that gets infected with a computer virus, not you yourself with a biological virus ...

    Hang on, I just noticed a web site with this news: "Microsoft announces new feature in WinXPhorn Avalon.NET OutlookPoint 2006: automatic administration of cholera vaccine simply by clicking on the VACCINATION button (requires use of new Fingerpoke Mouse hardware with Embedded Injection Technology from Microsoft)."

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  59. precisely, mod up plz :) by iamr00t · · Score: 1

    ASCII pr0n all the way!

  60. Saftey is a thing of the past by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is doing anything online 100% safe anymore? Hell, just being online and doing nothing isnt even safe..

    Brave new world.. Sux..

    This is what happens when you have more complex systems then is reall needed just to have an extra feature to get people to 'upgrade'..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  61. one code... by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    ISBN 0-7645-4468-3

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:one code... by dacarr · · Score: 1

      ...to pwn them all, it seems. Thanks for the pointer.

      --
      This sig no verb.
  62. Re:Damn It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess thats why people doing science research are no longer paying programmers.

    Ahhh, what we have here is a bitter old man jealous of those with CS degrees.
    Regexp on binary data? Good luck.
    Preparse the data? What if your preparser has the flaw?
    I guess when hacking your little math programs and Perl scripts you don't get much exposure to large projects. Build your doghouse and criticize the skyscraper architect.

  63. Not just a Microsoft problem by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    The open source libjpeg that just about all open source software depends on has had its own share of problems.

    It's good to see that file parsers, not something that traditionally recieves the degree of scrutiny that network-facing server code gets, are being examined for security vulnerabilities, though.

  64. How can this buffer overflow be reproduced? by Serveert · · Score: 1

    anyone know?

    --
    2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  65. I'm sick of this by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't run windows at home for 2 years, but I still have to talk to my mom, and her neighbors 1000 miles away cause they have Dell's with XP! regardless of what I've done from here their machines just get overrun with viruses or trojans. I've installed spybot, they have Mccafee running (supposedly) and now this.

    I really wish my mom would get broadband so I could install/admin linux from here.

    BC

    1. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous+Squonk · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you never need to patch Linux?

    2. Re:I'm sick of this by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Are you saying that you never need to patch Linux?

      I believe what he was saying is that, for him at least, a Linux system for his mother would be easier to administer and update remotely than a Windows system.

      You Windows people are really frothing at the mouth these days... (As are quite a few Linux zealots.) Chill.

  66. Useful links for everyone concerned by KJKHyperion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft Security Bulletins RSS feed, to receive notifications of new patches ASAP

    MBSA and HFNetChk, automated tools to check if your system is up to date (see also the qfecheck command to check the status of installed patches)

    Windows Update: analyze and update your system from a web page

    Microsoft Systems Management Server (prices and licensing), a solution for the management of Windows networks. Comes with support for automated deploying of patches

    --

    Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)

    1. Re:Useful links for everyone concerned by KJKHyperion · · Score: 1

      BTW, thanks a fucking lot, Microsoft Office team. Next time, use the fucking redistributable like everyone else, please: maybe we'd have KB articles with an "Applies to" section that doesn't read like "War and peace"

      --

      Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)

  67. Get to work, grayhats! by Dracos · · Score: 1

    Time to hack a jpg on msn and hotmail to trigger downloads of Firefox and Thunderbird.

  68. Microsoft's fix steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Especially for non XP and Windows 2003 Server, since there's an additional step:

    http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/200409 _jpeg_tool.mspx

  69. Pr0n really is dangerous! by s-orbital · · Score: 1

    I guess you cant say that it's safe to look at porn anymore!

    --
    Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
  70. Re:Damn It. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    To the masturbation?

  71. Re:Damn It. by HawkingMattress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So you really think it's that simple ?
    Your code is probably full of security holes, just like everybody's, and the fact that you think it's so simple is a clear evidence...
    Look, even Knuth was so certain that his code could not possibly be bugged that he promised a prize for the persons who would find bugs. And still, some were found. And we are talking about a program that was mathematically provable, and made by the living god of computer science, damnit !
    And you think that your code, which is sitting on dozens of layers speaking to each others in your back, and made with a high level language, cannot possibly have an unknow bug which could cause a security hole ?
    If so, then you're a security hole yourself.

  72. Re:Damn It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "nine edge" is the bottom of an IBM punchcard. had to load them "face down nine edge" first into the reader...

  73. Re:Aw, c'mon AC, RE: useless buzzword alert!!!! by El_Smack · · Score: 1


    "..."attack vector" is a real term and hasn't reached convergence in the buzzword mindshare yet."

    That whole last post was good, but that end part! Denying a charge of buzzword abuse like that; it's beautiful! Bravo, and well done.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  74. Linux "Repaired" and is inherently more securable by NZheretic · · Score: 1

    Both vulnerabilities mentioned within the article have already been fixed by all major Linux distributions. Replacement of the vulnerable library packages is easy to do and does not impact any of the software that depends upon those libraries. Linux is inherently more securable than Microsoft's desktop environment and applications.

  75. Zen and the Art of Tao Maintenance by shigelojoe · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you're going to be cute about buzzwords, at least wait until someone uses a real buzzword..."attack vector" is a real term and hasn't reached convergence in the buzzword mindshare yet.

    Just you wait until there's a paradigm shift; all of the sudden, you'll have to be proactive and think outside the box and you'll say to yourself, "Who moved my cheese?" :P

  76. Tell them to get 2 pcs by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Use one for important stuff, and the other to surf...

    And make sure they knwo to expect to be hit and have to reload their 'web' comptuer often...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  77. User-permissions by SilentChris · · Score: 1

    One mitigating factor some of these news articles are omitting (and I just noticed): the JPEG parser runs with user permissions. So, a user can hose their directory instead of the entire system, assuming it's configured correctly.

    Small consolation for home users, I know, but at least I won't need to worry as much for my domain users. I don't trust them with jack, and they're given the lowest permission level available above "computer completely turned off".

    1. Re:User-permissions by norkakn · · Score: 1

      What about all of the user privaledge escalation holes in windows?

  78. The update is here: by 511pf · · Score: 1

    The actual updates are here:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /ms04-028.mspx

    Windows Update wants you to download Windows XP SP2, which I'm not ready to do.

  79. D/L the Patches direct from MS Security Bulletin by Airw0lf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Avoid messy Windows and Office Updates and get what you need directly...

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS04-028.mspx

    Note that you may have to patch SEVERAL microsoft products. (E.g., you need separate updates for IE6 SP1, VS.NET 2003, Office 2003...)

    Note also that if you are running IE6 SP1 on *any* OS, you are vulnerable according to the bulletin.

    Some versions of the .NET framework are vulnerable too. Talk about multiple attack vectors!

  80. Security update impossible if original disk missin by jamiefaye · · Score: 1

    I tried updating Visio and Office. Both of the security update procedures insist on you inserting the exact same version of the installation CD that you used originally, otherwise they fail.

    In my case, I have the disks from later versions of both products and these were rejected. (I think this NT-2000 installation was from a corporation that dropped dead a year ago and I never bothered reinstalling Office and Visio on top of the already existing installations.)

    This means people who "borrowed" CDs for these two products are potential big fat targets.

    Bill Gates gets to make another 10 billion dollars.

  81. Now I feel somewhat safer by bigberk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...knowing that my mail client doesn't even load images -- it just strips down all that HTML mess to plaintext. I never trusted pretty emails.

    Honestly, looking at something like emails -- what does all this "meta deta" add that isn't available from plain text information content? Want a hyperlink, spell out its URL. Want some lines? Play around with hyphens. It's really not so bad, and so so much less dangerous.

  82. Is that the Windows splash screen? by solprovider · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (See the link in the parent post.)

    My first thought was that Time was exposing that Microsoft is behind/inside/running the US government.

    Then I read the captions, and it's just something about how our borders are still open. Yeah, we're still the free country. No, our fight against terrorism is losing. Yay, we still have rights. No, we want the government to take those rights away. Yay, bring us your poor and tired, or at least they will be once they start working our overtime crazy schedules. No, I am not reading Time magazine to discover how they slanted it; I'd rather read Slantdot.

    But watch out! That image of the magazine cover is a JPEG. Time magazine could be taking over your computer. (Pretending that anybody reading Slashdot is still using MSInternetExplorer.)

    --
    I spend my life entertaining my brain.
  83. MS can afford to defend itself, small bus. can not by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Because the small company can't afford to defend itself, Microsoft can. Some lawsuits are filed with the intention of settling for something less than what the defendant would have to pay to successfully defend themselves. Even when a small business is in the right they have to settle because it will cost less. When a company has enough resources, money or lawyers on staff, they will vigorously defend all lawsuits even when doing so costs more than a settlement would. This is to deter lawsuits where the plantiff knows they have no case.

  84. Re:Security update impossible if original disk mis by JamieF · · Score: 1

    I was gonna say something like "well at least it's good to see that Microsoft is reusing code!" but if you have to separately update each application, that's pretty lame. They get all the benefit of reuse but you still have to install redundant binaries all over the place?

    Why isn't there just a shared library (or two or three, if there are incompatible versions) that needs to be updated at an OS level, fixing everything that links to it?

  85. Fair Play by polyp2000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lets face it ... If Microsoft cannot even parse simple JPEGS without leaving a security hole why the hell do they have the position they hold in the marketplace today ?

    Microsoft != Security folks...
    it might be marginally more freindly than Selected Choice Opposition, but the end of the day you have to question the people who chose to deploy M$ solutions. Dont Blame the boys in Redmond! .. they just make a product... The evidence is out there time and time again. YET! people still deploy it! you have to be blind (or damn stupid) to reccommend M$ as a safe platform on which a business depends. Why do people beleive it is "The best solution?" ? it beats me! (yay! employ me, I will reccommend to my boss a platform that is proven to be full of security holes, is unstable and is a sitting target for exploits)? Id be ashamed to reccommend M$ to anyone who employed me as a techie.

    M$ depend on ignorance and bribery and FUD supllied to (stupid)systems people, I dont know a single M$ user that actually trusts the platform that they use, no matter how much they feel indebted to it!( they still get pissed of with it!) even if they are showing of their P4 HT 4ghz uber-spec system! Even joe sixpack hates those pop-ups and needs to call on geek friends to remove spyware! M$ is just shit point blanc! The only people that can be absolved are the "non-technical" people that simply assume, thats "just the way it is" accept it because they dont know otherwise.

    I dont care how many anti-this, anti-that troll's and zealots there are. At the end of the daty there are people making decisions out there based on pretty pictures and not on proven facts.

    The fact of the matter is that in black and white is if security, stability and cross-platform compatibility matter to you, M$ is not an option, it doesnt even enter the equation. Would you own up to reccommending M$ ? and on what grounds ?

    Nick...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Fair Play by swissmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets face it ... If the open source community cannot even parse simple PNGS without leaving a security hole why the hell do they claim to be better than Microsoft ?

      If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that the JPEG format is definitely not the easiest file format to support, and you'd also know that coding mistakes can happen everywhere, as witnessed daily in the open source community.

      So instead of going on an unjustified rant against MS because of something that happen daily everywhere, just chill out.

    2. Re:Fair Play by varjag · · Score: 1

      If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that the JPEG format is definitely not the easiest file format to support

      But it isn't too hard to implement either: a CS student can write you a codec in a couple of months.

      Their problem here really is antiuqe development tools not suited for the modern times. Buffer overruns were a solved problem decades ago, and still having them now is inexcusable.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    3. Re:Fair Play by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been solved decades ago, proof is that every major OS today still has these issues.

      If you use managed code(Java, c#,...) you can avoid them, but none of the existing OSes uses that for performance reasons.

    4. Re:Fair Play by varjag · · Score: 1

      Duh, you don't have to use managed code. Ever heard of Pascal or Ada? All that is necessary is runtime bounds-checking. Sometimes even that isn't necessary, when language's type system allows to infer at compile time if the array bounds can be violated (see e.g. OCaml).

      And the fact that numerous OSes still have buffer overrun vulnerabilites is completely unrelated to the state of technlogy. The solutions were there decades ago, but still aren't being used every where necessary.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  86. Parent has got to be the +5 funniest ever by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    That is the most laughing I have ever done in my 4+ years on slashdot. This post should be a (+12) funny. Damn. Im still chuckling. Thanks, anonymous AC.

  87. Re:MS can afford to defend itself, small bus. can by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ford, Bank of America, Kodak, Eastman Chemical, DuPont, GE, and other fortune 500 companies are not small and they get sued all the time for minor matters like this. But Microsoft doesn't.

    It's just something to think about. (Like the settle out of court and no one knows about the settlements.)

  88. This happens to you when....... by kc_cyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

    This happens to you when you don't pay the appropriate licensing fees!

  89. Hotmail can be safe (using Mozilla) by solprovider · · Score: 1

    Hotmail does not automatically download images if you access it using Mozilla without "Accept all images". Even MS's navigation graphics do not appear using "Accept images that come from the originating server only" because the URLs for the images contain the IP Address!

    ---
    I am still wishing Mozilla would add the ability to easily add domains/server/paths to the "Allow" list for image permissions. I am using Mozilla 1.6, so it is possible they figured out a better UI (by reading my posts?) to improve it in a more recent release. Without a good UI, functionality does not matter. Mozilla's 9 clicks to view a picture is excessive. (I just spent 5 hours designing a dialog box that has one set of radio buttons and one set of checkboxes. Now I have to make the functionality work.)

    ---
    Somebody else already asked, but there were no answers. Does anybody know if Mozilla on MSWindows could be susceptible to this bug?

    I took this news report as an opportunity to remind my friends and family to use Mozilla. Some of them are using Mozilla on MSWindowsXP. I told them they are safe from THIS Microsoft bug. Did I lie?

    --
    I spend my life entertaining my brain.
  90. Re:Damn It. by JamieF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Real Programmers do make mistakes. However, they don't ship code with great big galloping bugs that a quick code review or many many code analysis tools could have found.

    In Knuth's case, he didn't say "I bet $100,000,000,000 that nobody can find a bug!". He created an incentive for people to review his code for bugs. There's a big difference.

  91. My mother doesn't think so by runderwo · · Score: 2, Funny
    She always told me looking at images would make me go blind.

  92. Re:Completely OT but...airpwn? by blincoln · · Score: 1

    Pwned? What kind of kiddies come up with this stuff; that's not even pronounceable.

    I think the idea is supposed to be that the target is so "owned" that the letter "o" is insufficient for the task and is incremented by one to a "p."

    AFAIK it's still pronounced as if the first letter were an "o." Perhaps the speed at which the "ownedness" increases to the point of incrementing the first letter is so great that the pronounciation lags behind, like the shockwave wake of a supersonic aircraft.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  93. Re:Oh my god by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I Googled Bush and got crabs.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  94. Re:Todd Waters Here by mikefe · · Score: 1

    Oh, if I only had mod points!

    --
    There: Something at a specific location.
    Their: Owned by someone.
    Please make sure your english compiles.
  95. RTA--It's Not a Problem by Captain+Chad · · Score: 1
    According to many of the articles referenced in the post (e.g., here and here):
    Users who have already downloaded Microsoft's recent security update, Service Pack 2, are not affected.
    So this is not a huge deal--if you've done your job and kept your computer updated, you are safe.
    --
    Check out Chad's News
  96. What to tell people by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    I've been telling readers of my nontechnical security blog (http://www.berylliumsphere.com/security_mentor) to "stay out of bad neighborhoods". Obviously there's residual risk: legitimate sites do get compromised, eBay doesn't control the uploaded pictures, and so on. But there should be some risk reduction from avoiding warez/porn/spamvertised places.

    Long term we may need to sandbox web and mail clients.

    >Or just get them Macs.

    May or may not help. It wasn't long ago that OS X had a remote compromise from visiting a web page. OS X has good DNA but it's also had less testing/debugging from bad guys. The big advantage of a Mac today is like wearing camouflage: you don't have to be bulletproof if nobody shoots at you.

  97. Protection from buffer overruns by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately that doesn't protect against exploits recoded as return-to-libc exploits.

  98. The MS Bulletin by ManuelKelly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is real nasty. It looks like most versions of office as well as MS Works since 2000 are affected. See the Security Bulletin Any random word document with an infected embeded jpg is a transfer vector.

  99. Re:Win 98 -It's a Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you have Win 98, IE 6 needs patching.

    I just did Windows Update from Win98SE.

  100. Close All Windows by picardsb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Performance rating - ms windows Listen to music insecure + Look at pictures insecure + Read a document insecure = Keep windows on insecure If there is no use of windows anymore then, Remedy is: No windows - only doors and walls please. Close windows.

  101. How dumb can they be by dynamo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Watch out for next week's critical flaw in MS Hello World.

    1. Re:How dumb can they be by dynamo · · Score: 1

      Dude, there might be bugs, but unless I'm a total idiot or I use a dangerously primitive language and don't do any manual buffer overflow checking, I don't think any of them will be giving the user or malicious image creator any extra access. Basic translation from one data format to another should not risk cracking the system. It takes exceptional stupidity to make a hole like that.

      Even for a Microsoft employee.

  102. Right... by jack_csk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next vulnerable file format is ASCII text file

  103. Disable HTML/Images in Outlook 2000 SP3 or higher by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

    Just FYI, this is one of the greatest add-ons for Outlook. It allows you to completely disable HTML for incoming messages (which, in turn, lets you turn back on the PREVIEW pane!).

    Further, you can specify precisely what extensions are to be trusted -- useful if you frequently email database files or other "forbidden" files to co-workers. While you can also do this with a registry hack, having it as an option panel in Outlook is nice.

    BUT WAIT, THAT'S NOT ALL! It also allows you to minimize Outlook to your system tray when you minimize the window -- nice if you like to keep Outlook open all the time, but don't like it taking up valueable space.

    It's also free, though it's so damned useful I suggest you donate some cash to the guy. Disclaimer: I don't work for the guy, I don't know the guy, but I love the software and have installed it on every networked machine at my office. It rules.

    Once again, download it here.

  104. Re:Popups on ./ by quantaman · · Score: 1

    sounds like you've got ad-ware.. is this on IE? if so then nothings off-limits, if not IE then thats just weird..

    Both times Mozilla on FC2, on two different machines with two completely different networks.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  105. Microsoft GDIPlus.DLL JPEG Parsing Engine Buffer O by seifried · · Score: 1

    From the advisory:

    The JPEG parsing engine included in GDIPlus.dll contains an exploitable buffer overflow. When a specially crafted JPEG image is accessed through the Windows XP shell, a buffer overflow occurs potentially allowing an attacker to run arbitrary code on the affected system. Due to the pervasiveness of the affected dll there may be other vulnerable attack vectors.

    For the full advisory please see: http://lists.seifried.org/pipermail/security/2004- September/004765.html

  106. Fun with MSN Messenger by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    Set one of these JPEG files as your avatar in MSN Messenger, and hack your whole contact list at once!

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  107. did you see all the different patches... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

    ...for different products.

    Microsoft development -- who says you can't build quality products with ctrl-c / ctrl-v?!

  108. Re:Completely OT but...airpwn? by binner1 · · Score: 1

    I always kind of thought that it meant pawned...similar to owned, but even more derogatory?

    -Ben

  109. MS needs to fix Office update by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    so it doesnt require the CD. Yeah, I have mine - somewhere. Its not like I'm a heavy office user. Now ask your typical technophobe where her or his CD is. Especially for a computer thats a couple years old and everything came pre-installed.

    Their Office Update implementation is even worse than you think. Lets say I have Office 2000 Small Business. Great, that disc won't work if the original install was Premium or any other version. Even Office 2000 SR-1 discs wont work with Office 2000. Come on, the binaries can't be that fucking different.

    Officeupdate should be moved into windows update and MS should figure out a way to do these updates without a CD and still keep the download manageable. Heck, they dont even really do that, do they?

    We spend all this time doing MS's work for them. Telling people about Automatic Updates, etc. Its only a matter of time before there is a new batch of Word and Excel based viruses (not to mention visio).

    There are a lot of holes in Office. Lets see, the recent wordperfect converter expoit and the jpeg exploits are both buffer overruns. So even if you got the latest service pack after install (like I usually do) these two are just waiting to be abused and sadly people think automatic updates takes care of all this.

  110. why not just try.... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...small claims court? Cost you maybe 25 clams or something filing fee, and no one can have a lawyer in court. Challenge the dang EULA if you want. I think one way a challenge could come from is you can't sign a contract that gives up any of your rights,so the contract becomes null. Challenge even if you are just renting the software to use it, it says on the box "operating system", contains a browser and an internet/network connection as part to it. Do these things qualify as suitable for a purpose? In the EULA they claim they aren't, but on the box they sure say they are, else they wouldn't be called that. which is it then, which is the one the customer really sees, what do they advertise oin the box?

    Do these products function? At best only intermittently. Is it suitable to use on the internet? Absolutely not, not as shipped they don't.

    I honestly don't know if anyone has ever done it, who knows, maybe it would work. Do you have documentation for lost time, lost business, additional cost and expenses, etc? You'll need that paperwork as well.

    Imagine a few hundred thousand small claims cases were microsoft (someone to be determined obviously) had to show up and defend themselves, and without a lawyer with them. Would be a hoot!

    Anyway, I think it's time, if software can be profitted from,if software can be granted a patent as a product, it should be treated like any other product, it needs warranties like any other product has. Less releases, sure, probably happen. Better quality, most assuredly. I fail to see the problem in that. It would force PHB and marketing weasels into doing what I see developers claim they want all the time anyway, not ship something until it's done.

    Are any other meat space products "perfect"? Nope. But good enough that every other business seems to be able to deal with it. It's time the software "industry" got forced into legally growing up, IMO.

    1. Re:why not just try.... by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      Imagine a few hundred thousand small claims cases were microsoft (someone to be determined obviously) had to show up and defend themselves, and without a lawyer with them.

      In such cases, the company being sued (Microsoft in this case) can send any employee to represent them. Chances are Microsoft employs a bunch of lawyers, so they will obviously send a lawyer to court. So, unless you're a lawyer yourself, you're stuck one-on-one against someone who obviously knows more about laws than you do.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    2. Re:why not just try.... by zogger · · Score: 1

      still should be done you would think. I'd do it but I have never personally suffered from running windows, because I've only run it temporarily at times on used machines, I'm an old machead and now linux. I saw what my friends were going through starting way back in DOS days and I said "no thanks" to that noise.

      I've done my own law work before on two cases, well three actually, it's not as hard as folks think. (one the other party dropped, call that a win, two I won, both out of court because they realised I had them cold and was prepped enough to go to court and just bury them) Courtroom procedure you can get help from clerk of courts, and case law is researchable.

      Small claims is limited to judge action, no juries, and it's designed so that normal folks can just get up and speak normally. I think it's doable to challenge them for lost productivity, actual costs involved, etc. See, huge cases are real expensive, that's what corporations expect and gear up for, but in local small claims, nope, I think it's more doable. I think the judge wouldn't take kindly to a company having a lawyer show up in his court to argue a small claims case with his corporation, that's usually forbidden as far as I know, but that needs to be researched. Should be easy enough to find out with one post on groklaw.

    3. Re:why not just try.... by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      We haven't got small-claims court around here, but the interesting thing would be to sue MS without having had a business relationship with them. For example: A company had left behind a box in the same server room I was in, and managed to route their traffic through my box. Then, it got this nasty SQL virus. My firewall performed well, but bombardment of packets was immense. Initially, I didn't understand what was going on, and since I'm pretty new at this, I had to learn tcpdump and similar tools. It took me two days to track it down, and only then the operators managed to kill the box.

      I would like to send the bill to the company that managed to have an unpatched system and routed their traffic through me. They need to realize bad security is a TCO factor. They might then send the bill on to MS if they wish.

      But the really interesting thing would be to sue because of the lost time and bandwidth all the MS viruses cost, not because you're a customer, but because you're a victim anyway.

      So, if you have any experience here, please go ahead!

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  111. And you obviously never looked at... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...the color scheme of it.slashdot.org.

    http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/14/2 226226

  112. Re:Why is it... by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

    because thrashing Microsoft is more fun.

  113. Being large does not mean you can defend yourself by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Ford, Bank of America, Kodak, Eastman Chemical, DuPont, GE, and other fortune 500 companies are not small and they get sued all the time for minor matters like this. But Microsoft doesn't.

    Size does not necessarily correlate with the ability to defend oneself. A large company can be in a very bad financial state and not have the necessary resources. Again, "When a company has enough resources, money or lawyers on staff, ...". Microsoft with its huge cash surplus can afford such resources. Were the companies that you list sued at their peak and did they settle or fight when they were at their peak? If they settled was it in the distant past before these nuisance lawsuits became a plague? Were they settling nuisance lawsuits that would not have been won?

  114. The dickens, you say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    The average layman uses Occam's Razor

    Average laymen program transputers?

  115. Actually, I wonder by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you could make it work through the browser/email client. Embed something labelled as "kiddy pr0n" and then doing something like email the IP address and a listing of JPG/avi/mpg files that aren't in temp internet files (I'm guessing some would have nice filenames indicating whether the person was actively a KP downloaded or accidental).

    1. Re:Actually, I wonder by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but I think Kazaa is faster.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  116. Re:Damn It. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Informative

    No - to goatse.cx!

    Here you go!

    From Wikipedia:

    WARNING! All of these addresses lead directly to the pornographic image described above.

    The website is available from at least six other locations, all of which are still up:
    http://hick.org/goat/ also http://198.247.175.96/goat/
    http://retropay.com/g oatse/goatse.cx/
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030 623201150/http://g oatse.cx/
    http://synflood.at/mirrors/goatse.cx/
    http://www.goatse.org/mirror/

    These sites have the same contents as Goatse.cx before it went down.

    Another mirror, apparently from an older version of the site, is available at http://goat.cx/ The GNAA states that it operates that site [1] .
    http://goatse.cc/ and http://notyet.goatse.cc are the same except for the two links in the "Receiver" section. (Johnnyversace.com)http://johnnyversace.com) and Boards.ie are linked to instead of Urinal Poop and Dolphin Sex.)
    http://www.rokbom.com, which is a "front page" for a personal website (http://rokbom.com/index.php, linked by an additional "Rokbom" link). The receiver page lacks the "merchandise" string that the current version has, suggesting that the front is a mirror of an older version of goatse. The modified contrib section has the text "A small request: SUP XXX JASON IS THE RECEIVER" in addition to other content, and the text "Our first Christmas present: A collage from the people at holyzoo.com! Thank you!" is present, unlike in the current version of Goatse; the image is on both sites, however.
    http://www.goatse.ca, which only has the "Receiver" section. Instead of Dolphinsex and Urinal Poop, the text "Fight Censorship!" is below hello.jpg.
    http://www.lagnet.co.za, which only has hello.jpg and the text "I SUBSCRIBED TO TELKOM'S ADSL AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO ME!!!"

    External links

    http://goatse.cx/ - Leads to the notice of the domain suspension.
    http://www.supa-gangstaz.tk - Redirect to goat.cx that also spawns numerous popups with hello.jpg.
    http://hick.org/goat/index-orig.html - The Goatse page at a new location. WARNING - This leads to the picture described above.
    http://www.hick.org/goat/mail.html - "Feedback" subsection with reader email selections. This page does not contain pornographic images.
    http://www.hick.org/goat/contrib/gap.zip and http://www.exet.nu/html/bildarkiv/goatse.shtml - Links to gap.zip
    http://www.hick.org/goat/loopback.jpg - The loopback.jpg picture. WARNING - This leads to pornographic material
    http://www.hick.org/goat/contrib/hello.m pg - The hello.mpg movie. WARNING - This leads to pornographic material
    http://www.roflmao.com/hatejob - A redirect to Goat.cx
    http://www.stileproject.com/ - located the complete image set. WARNING! This site contains pornographic and potentially offensive materials.
    http://www.fc-uk.org.uk/goatse/index.h tml - A satirical fictional interview with Bob Goatse.
    http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A20210 /plp56/ - Another interview, this one with a French man who some have claimed to be the Goatse Man. WARNING! This page contains pornographic material similar to that at Goatse.cx.
    http://mjt.nysv.org/ - has a goatse tribute section.
    http://sam.zoy.org/fun/goatse/ - has a comprehensive goatse tribute section with many well-known (and many lesser-known) photoshoppings of the images from the site
    http://adult.pornparks.com/rosebutt/kirk/001 /index .htm - Photographs of a man named Kirk Johnson, who some claim to be the Goatse man. WARNING! This page contains pornographic material similar to that at Goatse.cx.
    http://www.detroithardcore.com/lensman .jpg - Kirk Johnson's "Lensman" photograph. The image is also on the detroithardcore.com main page.
    See the official complaint (PDF) by an individual named Rhonda Clarke [2] , the official note (PDF) to the domain's registrant and the current state of the

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  117. My dad was half right by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Porn makes my computer go blind

  118. If I didn't see this on /. I'd think it was FUD by puffbunny · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm just a Java programmer, but --- well, reading an "image" is just piping an input stream into a decoder object that would return a graphic object.

    Nowhere in this process could I imagine anything that would necessitate executing any data that might be an instruction.

    Read byte x, that is the red value for a specific pixel.. (I understand Jpeg is more complicated than this).. How could that "x" be a "format c:" DOS command?

    --

    -*-

    hitting bottom never felt so good

    1. Re:If I didn't see this on /. I'd think it was FUD by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      I'm just a Java programmer, but --- well, reading an "image" is just piping an input stream into a decoder object that would return a graphic object.

      Reading an image *file* is a lot more complex than simply piping graphic data along in memory, especially with JPEG.

      First off, JPEG doesn't just store the image data, but also other kinds of data fields as well, such as thumbnail data, comment data etc.

      You generally have a header which gives you information about what's stored in the file, where it's stored, how big it is, etc. The more extensible your format, the more complex this meta-structure.

      Then you finally have the image data itself, and JPEG is more complex than you describe here, as well, as each "block" is described by mathematical coefficients of varying complexity, rather than just image data.

      Of course, this is all stuff that your "decoder object" would do for you. But in this case, the bug is in the decoder object itself.

      Nowhere in this process could I imagine anything that would necessitate executing any data that might be an instruction.

      Read byte x, that is the red value for a specific pixel.. (I understand Jpeg is more complicated than this).. How could that "x" be a "format c:" DOS command?


      Well this is trickier. First you have to understand that code and data basically turn into the same thing -- bytes in the computer's memory. Usually the computer runs along executing the "machine code" that's stored in the memory, and it's never supposed to start executing the data that is also stored in the memory. However, there are ways to "trick" the program into executing bytes in the data area. You then have to embed your malicious machine code into that data, and there's your exploit.

      This specific vulnerability with JPEGs is in the decoding of the "comment" field. There's a value which tells you the length of that field, but it has a minimum length of 2. The Microsoft parser never deals with the case where that "length" value is less than 2, because it's not supposed to be (btw, this is bad programming practice -- you should never assume that your input won't be out of range). It subtracts 2 from that number to get an "actual length" -- but in the case where the number is 0 or 1, the actual length turns out to be -2 or -1.

      Problem is, this negative length is interpreted as an unsigned number, and ends up being a reallly big positive number. This ends up screwing around with the memory allocation for the comment buffer, which eventually is used to trick the computer into running machine code that was embedded in the image. I'm really shaky on how the details of this part work right now :P

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
  119. So they DID know about this by Gopal.V · · Score: 1

    Apparently they should have known about this, there's no other logical explanation for this :)

    Anyway just goes to prove how underhanded MS really is . ("We already have a patch")

  120. Re:Damn It. by rush22 · · Score: 1

    Of course we think of things but it is never possible to think of every possible scenario when you are punching out applications with hundreds of thousands lines of code

    Well you better damn well think of the possibility of overflowing the memory if you're writing any program, let alone a library function that is called by at least 10 of your most-used programs, and let alone a function that's probably less than fifteen lines long. I mean, overflowing the memory causes problems to the computer regardless of whether it's a virus or not.

    A corrupt file should not take down the entire program. A corrupt file should display garbage or nothing at all.

  121. Re:The good news is by arose · · Score: 1

    Arrrr. RIAA "patched" my left eye, MPAA is out for the right.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  122. Please try my new JPEG by serutan · · Score: 1

    It is my first one. I hope you to like it.

  123. .Net buffer overflows by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I see .Net is affected, you can't really be safe from overflows when much of your system is based on a foundation with so many holes...

    This brings up a very real point that Java is really more secure than .Net, .Net sseems to have similar security features but a lot more of its library code is going to be vulnerable to things like this as it makes heavy use of OS features.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  124. More like... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine running windows for anything important. It's like being in middle-school with a big "Kick Me" sign taped to your ass.

    I think you are pretty close, except that the sign is taped in the front. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  125. Did MS fix the RLE image kernel vulnerability? by Animats · · Score: 1

    There's an old bug in Win2K which allows a buffer overflow in the kernel via a suitable .BMP file. There's a lossless compressed form of .BMP files called RLE, for run length encoding. For some stupid reason, there's a decompressor for these things inside the Win2K kernel. Malformed .BMP files can cause a buffer overflow and system crash. This could probably be exploited into an attack.

  126. Meanwhile, by Piquan · · Score: 4, Funny

    On a completely and totally unrelated topic, does anybody know where I can buy lots of banner ad space in bulk?

  127. Windows: Get the picture? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
    New slogan for Microsoft Windows and Office products:
    • A picture is worth a 1000 worms
    I bet this vulnerability was discovered about the same time the similar BMP privilege escalation buffer overflow was discovered reading alleged Windows NT source code. "Gee, if BMP is handled so badly, let's attack JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, ... BINGO!"
    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  128. Open source jpeg libraries? by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't it a reasonable assumption, that MSFT is using open source JPEG libraries just like anyone else? Shouldn't we audit libjpeg now, just to be sure?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  129. Re:Completely OT but...airpwn? by Pike65 · · Score: 1

    I always assumed it was a deliberate type, much like the use of the 'teh' instead of 'the'.

    --
    "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
  130. Re:Damn It. by DrPizza · · Score: 1

    And even then there would still be security flaws. I think the saying about bugs goes something like "Any non-trivial program has at least one bug."

    Only if you define "non-trivial" as "buggy".

    If you're willing to discard such notions as the "inevitability" of bugs then you can find that bug-free programs aren't that hard.

  131. re:and this will unman the strongest man by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    ouch.

  132. It was never safe to look at images! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Don't you know you can go blind?!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  133. Executable data segment? by mclearn · · Score: 1

    I didn't read the FA, but I doubt it would answer this question. Perhaps someone in the know might be able to answer. Why is the data segment executable in the first place? Seems to me that this would help avoid most of the "buffer overrun allowing arbitrary code to execute" problems. Non executable data segment means that you can only read and write. If you try to break the boundary of the data segment in an attempt to cross into the code segment...well, you get a GPF.

    1. Re:Executable data segment? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      'cause on x86 architecture there is no separate 'readable' vs 'executable' flags. If you can read it, you can execute it.

  134. Flagse.cx by n1ywb · · Score: 1

    hahahahahah!

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  135. Re:Damn It. by PriceIke · · Score: 1

    That's why he posted anonymously. He knows if he puts himself out there with a statement like that, it will take some slashdotter about .002 minutes to find a *cough gaping security hole in his code and start fucking with him.

    --
    It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  136. All the cries for lawsuits are scary by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

    Really, do you know if the JPEG decompression code in your favorite app or desktop is bug free? It's not so easy to write exploit free code for something like this without paying conscious effort to it, which is very rare in my experience. Consider that you need to range check just about all values and be very careful to make sure that some simple math which affects a pointer value is never used raw. Adding all of this to a JPEG decoder makes the code bulkier and makes it slower, which is why you don't see a lot of open source people rushing to do this. In fact, how many people run test suites on their image format decoders to ensure that they aren't exploitable? And if they do run test suites, how many people are really sure of the results? It's easy enough to have pointer overruns in C that go undetected, but can change critical values that affect other parts of the code. Scary.

  137. Re:Damn It. by mikeee · · Score: 1

    So, one day long ago, Knuth is teaching a CS class, and give an assignment. He provides a library the class can use for this coding assignment, but warned them (this is from memory so may not be verbatim, sorry): "By the way, be careful with this library. I have only proven it correct, not tested it."

  138. The Price Of Consumer Computing by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

    What is the problem here?

    Lets face it, there will always be a flaw in software. There are even flaws in hardware. The first Pentiums even had flaws. The Windows OS is a HUGE system used in countless environments. You can't expect there to be no flaws, especially when the entire hacking world is trying to bring down or compromise the system.

    Could it be Windows?
    What people don't get is that Windows is an all-in-one system. You can't compare it to say, an IBM mainframe. These systems are designed mainly to do one or two jobs and are monitored by highly skilled system administrators who's job it is to protect these systems in the first place. In contrast, most Windows systems are administred by mom, dad and grandpa Felix.

    Could it be DSL/Cable?
    Broadband doesn't help any either. The amount of viruses produced and their intrusion success rate has increased since a lot of home computers are always connected to the outside world. Back in '82 viruses existed, but I never remember having to install virus software for my Apple IIe. Has the world changed?

    Could it be Linux?
    Then there is Linux. Linux is a great system, but again it is a MUCH simpler system compared to current Windows, has a much smaller install base and is obviously MUCH less hacked than Windows. Eventually, as this platform becomes more and more popular, you will begin to see more viruses written for it. I guarantee it.

    No, the real problem here is UCC (Uneducated Consumer Computing). Dell, Gateway, Compaq, IBM. They all make it look so easy and pain free to own a computer. Most people I meet on service calls, don't even know what a virus is or even what spyware is, or that they can download free patches and programs like Spybot or Ad-Aware. Let me tell you, I've made more money installing and running Ad-Aware than anything else!! I'm sure you have too. Don't lie now!

    And this trend won't go away either, regardless of OS or hardware. So get used to it. As long as UCC remains, we're all in for an earful of over zealous virus reporting by our wonderful, informative and helpful friends in the media. Besides $60 for an installation of Ad-Aware doesn't hurt the wallet either, especially in this IT economy! :-)

    Oh and by the way, for all you non-believers...
    http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/09/HNmoreli nuxholes_1.html

  139. Re:D/L the Patches direct from MS Security Bulleti by mikechant · · Score: 1

    Note also that if you are running IE6 SP1 on *any* OS, you are vulnerable according to the bulletin.

    I came to this conclusion eventually despite the fact that Windows 98, Me etc. are listed in as 'Non affected software'. I initially read this as meaning that whatever version of IE you had, you were *not* affected if you were on Win98 etc.

    The bulletin should make this a lot clearer.

  140. Another MS product == another security problem by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
    I'm really amazed at MSs ingenuity in designing security holes into every software product they produce. Only their dead-tree books don't have holes that can be exploited by virii and worms.

    For people who only know MS products, using computers has become synonym to getting digital virii/worms.

    As a result, MS users have learned to live with security problems and virii/worms infections. I know some people who disable their firewall and AV software, so they can speed up their MS chat software (their 128 MB PC has become real slow after they installed XP Pro, but they blame the firewall I installed).
    They consider the then inevitable virii/worms infections as a part of live, and after all, it's somebody else who has to do the necessary reinstall of Windblows and apps :( .

  141. Re:Completely OT but...airpwn? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    I think it is best pronounced pohned, exspecially after killing someone in SSBM (Super Smash Bro's Melee)

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  142. In related news.. by avij · · Score: 1

    Just got this in my email:

    -- cut here --
    Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:28:53 -0400
    From: Matthias Clasen
    Reply-To: fedora-list@redhat.com
    To: fedora-announce-list@redhat.com
    Subject: [SECURITY] Fedora Core 2 Update: gtk2-2.4.7-2.4

    Fedora Update Notification
    FEDORA-2004-289
    2004-09-15

    Product : Fedora Core 2
    Name : gtk2
    Version : 2.4.7
    Release : 2.4
    Summary : The GIMP ToolKit (GTK+), a library for creating GUIs for X.
    Description :
    GTK+ is a multi-platform toolkit for creating graphical user interfaces. Offering a complete set of widgets, GTK+ is suitable for projects ranging from small one-off tools to complete application suites.

    Update Information:

    During testing of a previously fixed flaw in Qt (CAN-2004-0691), a flaw was discovered in the BMP image processor of gtk2. An attacker could create a carefully crafted BMP file which would cause an application to enter an infinite loop and not respond to user input when the file was opened by a victim. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project (cve.mitre.org) has assigned the name CAN-2004-0753 to this issue.

    During a security audit Chris Evans discovered a stack and a heap overflow in the XPM image decoder. An attacker could create a carefully crafted XPM file which could cause an application linked with gtk2 to crash or possibly execute arbitrary code when the file was opened by a victim. (CAN-2004-0782, CAN-2004-0783)

    Chris Evans also discovered an integer overflow in the ICO image decoder. An attacker could create a carefully crafted ICO file which could cause an application linked with gtk2 to crash when the file was opened by a victim. (CAN-2004-0788)

    -- cut here --

    So.. Blaming MS for writing insecure image decoders is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

    --

    Follow your Euro bills at EBT
  143. Wow. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    I've had that horrible image seered into my brain before.

    What I didn't realize was that wiki (and possibly others) have actually started documenting it and listing who they think it might be.

    I find that rather ... odd.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  144. Links? by may05 · · Score: 1

    something is missing! where is the link to the microsoft's update page in the story paragraph?

    Does /. believe in windows users at all?

  145. Re:Why is it... by pclminion · · Score: 1
    Because the site is biased. Duh.

    I urge you to put in the effort, and make the distinction between site-wide bias, and the bias of particular individuals. Yes, Slashdot as a whole is very biased against Microsoft. But individual Slashdotters must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

    It's pointless to whine about the bias. It's like standing on a Florida beachfront screaming at the hurricane to "Turn back!"

  146. I've finally learned by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    I've finally learned that I have to use the "keep setup files" option and keep that huge pile of Office Setup Files around. Disk Clean-up always tries to get rid of them for me but have to keep them. I have the Office disks, but I keep everything packed away and it's a pain to dig them out. The reason they are needed, usually, is because of certain files that aren't needed any other time than during setup. Keeping the setup files on my PC keeps me from digging out the CDs for every service pack.

    It's taken me how many years to figure this out? I wish someone would have explained this to me earlier.

  147. Re:Completely OT but...airpwn? by BillX · · Score: 1

    So, if even 'pwned' is insufficient to describe the level of ownership (e.g. in the year 2042, hacking their heads-up display contact lenses so an un-turn-off-able Goatse is tattooed across their eyeballs), would they then be considered qwned?

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  148. There's a loophole in that. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    OK first of all: I'm not a lawyer, but...

    If you ride a bike on a highly transited street, you obviously expose yourself to some risks. So it's not the bike maker's fault.

    *HOWEVER*, if it's a FACT that when you ride the bike you'll _ALWAYS_ end up going to that dangerous street, _AND_ the bike maker doesn't offer you either alternative bikes or roads, then you can be SURE that it's the bike maker's fault. Either by action or by negligence.

    When companies signed a contract with Microsoft and bought their products and FORCE YOU to use Microsoft products (they signed the contract, not you), then you could sue either the company, or Microsoft. And when the WHOLE BUSINESS MODEL forces you to use Microsoft Products (i.e. Word),
    _AND_ by using the software you expose yourself to loss of data, or money (like working at home for something job-related), then the risk is INEVITABLE.

    The key here, is that Microsoft doesn't give you A CHOICE. So in practical terms, you are FORCED (read: coerced) to use their products. Isn't coercion something that can invalidate a contract (it can invalidate marriages for what I know)?

    When you take a risk because you had no choice, you are indeed affected by the person who forced you to take that risk. I think bosses have already been sued because their employees were taking UNNECESSARY RISKS.

    So, I think there IS a possibility to sue Microsoft. For property damage, of course.

  149. Re:Damn It. - I'm a perfect programmer, look! by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    An old college professor of mine once said: "There is no such thing as a perfect programmer. Those that think they are, are either a fool or a liar."


    Isn't this a perfect program written by a perfect programmer?

    C:\>debug
    -a 100
    134C:0100 int 20
    134C:0102
    -nbak2dos.com
    -rcx
    CX 0000 :2
    -w
    Writing 00002 bytes
    -q

    C:\>bak2dos

    C:\>

    Of course, this kind of perfection depends on Intel and Microsoft. It appears my 'do nothing' program does just that. If it doesn't, blame it on Intel and Microsoft.

    Of course, according to Murphy's Law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong either by accident, design, or (malicious) intent. Because of this, programmers (like me) should both code programs simply AND put themselves in the user's/badguy's shoes and try to anticipate potential problems and add sufficent code to deal with them beforehand.

    As a result of this approach to programming, I had to make 2 quick updates to my software some time ago to solve two problems rather than 'lots and lots' of updates--why force the users to be beta testers when you don't have to?

    FACT: It is NOT easy to write worthwhile, non-trivial software....