Re: Web based email issues
From: Colonel Flagg (colonel_flagg_at_NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:09:09 -0400
In article <MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> In article <G6CcnT2u9Oz_2_uiXTWJjw@brightview.com>, email@example.com
> > Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> > message news:MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > In article <MPG.email@example.com>,
> > > .jpg's and .gif's, once thought to be safe, haven't been for a number of
> > > years.
> > Im with the coloenl, i have an executable jpg on my xp box.
> Unless it was a renamed exe/com/etc... it is not an executable JPG -
> they don't execute ANY code on the platforms. You could have something
> like somefile.jpg.exe, but that would not be an IMAGE would it.
this is FUD.
jpg's and gif's may contain malicious and executable code. it's "how
they're handled" that matters.
true, a jpg or gif cannot be executed on their own, of course, neither
can an .exe, it needs an Operating System that understands it, in order
to run. the fact that a jpg or gif needs yet another application to
execute it's code is but another step to infecting yourself with a
no, i am not stating the sky-is-falling and that everyone *should* quite
viewing jpg's and gif's, however, the blanket statement that jpg's and
gif's are safe is crazy talk.
-- Colonel Flagg http://www.internetwarzone.org/ Privacy at a click: http://www.cotse.net Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb? A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..." "...I see stupid people."