[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <105989370407121416e19b889@mail.gmail.com>
From: stilist at gmail.com (Jordan Cole (stilist))
Subject: Firefox 0.92 DoS via TinyBMP
> This is precisely the point that almost everyone is missing
> completely (but still clamoring "it works on X, it doesn't work on
> Y"), and that Sapheriel pinpointed: the core problem lies in the
> Windows .bmp implementation.
>
> So, I wonder aloud, what is the purpose of publishing 'advisories'
> that misattribute this flaw to IE [1] or Firefox or any of the other
> hundreds or thousands of programs that use it and can be DoSed as a
> result?
Admittedly; but here's the question: if it's all the fault of Windows
.bmp implementation, or the fact that it's about a gig of data, why
are certain browsers (like mine) not vulnerable to it? I'm going to
the same page as anyone else...
--
[stlst]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists