bugtraq - RE: Edonkey/Overnet Plugins capable of Virus/Worm behavior

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20031219035314.OFEF16367.mta13.adelphia.net@toto>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:53:05 -0500
From: "ashton" <ashton@...tmedia.com>
To: "'Max'" <max@...andcarrie.com>,
	"'Pavel Kankovsky'" <peak@...o.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: RE: Edonkey/Overnet Plugins capable of Virus/Worm behavior


I do not know that emule can use plugins at this time.

-ashton

-----Original Message-----
From: Max [mailto:max@...andcarrie.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:32 PM
To: ashton; 'Pavel Kankovsky'
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Edonkey/Overnet Plugins capable of Virus/Worm behavior

Does this same plugin system also apply to emule?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:03:17 -0500, ashton wrote
> 1. giFT is unix - until noted otherwise, so goodluck. 2. Windows 
> Media is not P2P with a built in search of 1.2 million people for 
> the "uber upload limit crack plugin" in which when loaded is an 
> actual virus, it's very hard for joe average to get a harmful WMP 
> plugin but with this method in Overnet it's too easy, plus they 
> could propogate themselves through Overnet vulnerabilities on top.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Kankovsky [mailto:peak@...o.troja.mff.cuni.cz] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:43 PM
> To: Julian Ashton
> Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Edonkey/Overnet Plugins capable of Virus/Worm behavior
> 
> On 17 Dec 2003, Julian Ashton wrote:
> 
> > Good question, I have been working on plugin systems suchs as giFT and
> > Windows Media for quite a while and while they can do some neat
> > things, this kind of behavoir cannot happen because of the way they
> > were architechted. When I think of "plugins" I think of 1. An sdk. 2.
> > Methods that you create that the "client" listens for. 3. All code in
> > the plugin is sent to the "client" not the OS level. 4. Mainly COM
> > (this plugin uses full use of C++/MFC in a DLL)
> 
> Excuse me...how do giFT or Windows Media prevent their plugins from
> accessing the OS interface directly and doing whatever they (the 
> plugins) want to do? Do they run the plugins in a virtual machine?
> 
> --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source 
> code and prepare for assimilation."



--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)