From: str0ke at milw0rm.com (str0ke@...w0rm.com)
Subject: JPEG GDI

Berry,

I appreciate the information.  I would think newgroup postings would be a
little evil aswell.

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

///////// [EOF] ////////

Powered by blists - more mailing lists