Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1933 - 20 msgs

From: Barry Fitzgerald (bkfsec_at_sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: 09/28/04

  • Next message: str0ke_at_milw0rm.com: "[Full-Disclosure] How to obtain hostname lists" 
    To: "milw0rm Inc." <milw0rm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:05:45 -0400

    milw0rm Inc. wrote:

    >JPEG GDI problem,
    >
    >Isn't this problem only capable of running if the jpeg was opened via
    >the users actions?
    >
    >Is it possible that webpages could be effected with jpegs with
    >internet explorer viewing them? I wouldn't think so since what I have
    >read from multiple peoples articles that it isn't this kind of bug.
    >
    >Info needed.
    >
    >Regards,
    >str0ke
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Here's my understanding of it:

    The bug can be exploited whenever an application that relies on a
    vulnerable version of gdiplus.dll to render jpeg image files onscreen
    (Or, I suppose, in any other way that gdiplus.dll can be used to process
    jpegs - I'm not familiar with the GDI+ interface).

    That includes IE, Office applications, or anything that relies on a
    vulnerable gdiplus.dll file.

    What are the ramifications of this?

    I think that the predictions of worms based on this are a bit
    far-fetched. Would it be possible to create a jpeg that would copy
    itself to other drives on a shared network in an auto-executable
    position? I suppose so... however, it would be noisy and probably
    wouldn't be amazingly successful. Having a worm installer within a jpeg
    is plausable, though.

    I'd consider the following scenarios to be plausable:

           - JPEG in nefarious web page includes malicious code.
           - JPEG in SPAM includes malicious code.
           - JPEG in mass-mailer worm includes malicious code.
           - JPEG in ad pop-up/sidebar includes adware/spyware installer.
    (malicious)
           - Mass-mailer worm includes an attachment for a known vulnerable
    third-party program that trigger the GDI+ vuln. (how sucessful this
    might be would depend on the application being attacked.)
           - Download.Jecht style mass-compromise of websites to embed
    malicious code inside of JPEGs.

    Those are the most plausable scenarios I can think up for this.
    Anything else is unlikely in my thoughts.

                       -Barry

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: str0ke_at_milw0rm.com: "[Full-Disclosure] How to obtain hostname lists"
    • Quantcast