Spyware Tunnels in on Winamp Flaw

Andy Philips writes "A security bug in Winamp is being exploited by miscreants to install spyware on machines running the media player software. "After surfing to a malicious Web site on our test machines, the file 'x.pls' begins to download, Almost immediately, Winamp starts to execute the play list and remote code execution begins." Sunbelt's Adam Thomas wrote in a posting. The Winamp problem affects version 5.12 of the media player. Earlier versions may also be affected."

It's that Damn Llama's Fault

Once upon a time, I used Winamp.

And it was good.

It was fairly lightweight, I could load in huge playlists of college-napster-garbage without slowdown and I knew all the hot keys for searching and what not.

Then that llama came into the picture. I think it must have been version three or four (I can't remember) when there was a damned llama or alpaca or whatever in a green field. Now, I love llamas and alpacas, don't get me wrong. The problem was that now Winamp was about "graphix" and "features" that were once plugins that I didn't want.

I don't know why they thought Winamp needed to be able to play videos but it did now. I don't know why they thought Winamp had to show stupid tripping-on-acid-harmonograph visualizations but it did now. I don't know why they thought Winamp had to melt songs together but it did now ... etc.

On top of that, the memory footprint in Windows was crazy. And my roommate tried to put skins on Winamp that just made my computer shit its gourd. I was disgusted ... the hot keys may have still been there but what I was looking for in a media player was not. For some reason, they seemed to think that competing with Windows Media Player meant mimicking it to every detail. Fine. I never want to touch Windows Media Player, it's about as useful as my appendix. And now I feel the same way about Winamp.

Now there's a spyware flaw in Winamp. Am I surprised? Not really. They have gotten so complicated that there's probably a thousand holes in that application. They definitely lost site of what I was looking for--a plain jane slim audio player. Winamp's executing a remote method invocation through a playlist that can trigger itself to be automatically loaded and ran? Now that sounds like a "feature" I want my audio player to have.

Is this the first time this has happened? Nope, remember the zero day exploit [internetnews.com] that targeted skins in 2004? There's been a myriad of security issues with Winamp since it became more and more complicated.

"Gee, the way our audio player loads playlists isn't very secure. But it works and the people who use our application aren't interested in security--they're interested in playing AVI files on their audio player!"

So what would I recommend? Well, if you're using Linux, I can think of at least ten things better [neu.edu] but XMMS [xmms2.xmms.se] would probably be my favorite. If you're running Windows, I like to use Quintessential Player [quinnware.com] which can be modified to be as complicated as new Winamp or can be

Re:It's that Damn Llama's Fault

Can't you get xmms compiled for Windows, too?

Personally, I use iTunes now, because it just works with my iPod. I could probably use something else, but why bother?

Re:It's that Damn Llama's Fault

I used winamp too - until i found foobar2000 [foobar2000.org]

It supports virtually all posible audio codecs, and sound quality is much better

Re:It's that Damn Llama's Fault

I used winamp too - until i found foobar2000 [foobar2000.org]

It supports virtually all posible audio codecs, and sound quality is much better

From foobar2000.org:
Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?
No. Most of "sound quality differences" people "hear" are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). Foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now.

:-)

Re:It's that Damn Llama's Fault

For starters, you can go to www.oldversion.com and get winamp 2.95 along with a bunch of other versions. The train wreck that was winamp3 was also mostly corrected when they went to winamp5, and if you see from (http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php [winamp.com]) there's a "lite" version that weighs in at 0.85MB, and which supports mp3, wav, ogg, au, midi, cda, aac, etc. Since it doesn't support modern skins, I would suspect that it's probably just a rehash of 2.9x

I don't use the video features of Winamp. They were present in 2.95, but they weren't bloated yet. And I don't think it was a grab at the windows media player headspace. It really seemed like they just tacked it on because it wasn't hard to do. I think it uses the windows renderer and codecs anyway, just without all the crap in WMP.

Anyway, yeah, I still use 2.95 of winamp, just like I still use instant messanger 4.8. I'm open to change; I'm just not going to "upgrade" to a bloated product. What is it with software these days, anyway? Every piece of software tries to be everything to everyone. Ugh.

~Will

Winamp 5 == Winamp 2

Winamp 5 is essentially just an updated version of Winamp 2 renamed so that it would have a higher number than the trainwreck that was Winamp 3. There's no reason not to upgrade - all the "bloat" (modern skins, video support, media library, whatever) is an install-time option. Even with all the "bloat", I find that so long as I use a classic skin, its reasonably lightweight. (Modern skins, of course, eat up more CPU/memory).

If you're still using 2.95, you're probably vulnerable to a host of security issues and missing out on a number of useful features (better AAC/mp4 support for one, I believe). I highly reccomend upgrading to 5.13.

Re:It's that Damn Llama's Fault

I agree that Winamp 2 used to be great and Winamp 3 was horribly bloated. But what you really want to do is run the latest Winamp 5 with either the tiny Lite version, or the full version without modern skins. It has the same small memory footprint as Winamp 2... The only advantage of using Winamp 5 is that some of the recently discovered security holes have probably actually been in there the whole time and you might be putting yourself at risk if you run a really old version.

Oh

I was wondering why my mp3-collection was suddenly trying to sell me penis-lengthening pills!

So now it...

...whips your computer's ass, as well as the llama's.

Download link to latest version.

Link to WinAmp Free Player [winamp.com].

Vulnerability is optional

I know you will all correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't have the .pls as a trigger for Winamp as a plugin, you're not vulnerable. Just set your browser to do something else with .pls (like offer to download). Or trash the file type association or set it for something other than Winamp.

Or if you're a luddite like me and can't stand plugins, prevent them all from working by commenting out the plugins lines in:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\mozilla.org\GRE\ [version here] \greprefs\all.js

This is assuming you use Mz or FF for web on Windows like a sensible person.

Move Along

As usual, nothing to see here...

From ZDNet Asia: The flaw was disclosed on Monday, when Winamp maker Nullsoft, a division of America Online, released an update to fix it. The company posted version 5.13 of Winamp, while Secunia and other security companies issued alerts about the problem. Secunia rated the issue "extremely critical," its highest rating.

Flaw detected and removed. New version of Winamp out. Get the new version. Protected. Not much more difficult than that. Shouldn't there a be a "Software Vulnerabilties" section to Slashdot, where these things could be posted?

Re:Move Along

Shouldn't there a be a "Software Vulnerabilties" section to Slashdot, where these things could be posted?

That's certainly an option, however Winamp is a hugely popular media player. I'm sure many Slashdot readers have Winamp, and wouldn't visit such a section regularly, so fairly 'big' stories like this should at least be posted to the front page too. At the very least, I know now that I need to update Winamp.

Foobar2000

A small plug for the greatest MP3 player in existance, Foobar2000 [foobar2000.org]

It's so awesomely customisable, it hurts.

Slashdot runs winamp?

Woah, they even got the might dot! My quip down the bottom was System going down in 5 minutes.

Nice work!

There are other applications to use

It should be noted that no application is secure enough (except some 'Hello World!' implementations). It's not unusual that one should get hotfixes, service packs, etc. to keep ones system (relatively) secure against crackers. If you like winamp get the update and relax. As other folks said you may use other applications, mplayer is my favourite one. Of course I run it on Linux.

Strange

Isn't this like reporting on something exploiting an old bug in xmms or likewise?

A fixed version of Winamp was released even before any of the mainstream media had published their reports. Isn't this rehashing the same?

Winamp 5.12 and older are vulnerable? Wasn't this the point of the original article? What does this have to offer than the same old story when it comes to all software. Upgrade to remove those nasty bugs.

I believe you can find the fixed version here, its been there for a week:

http://www.winamp.com/player/ [winamp.com]

Interesting

So this is the sound of the internet crashing? It even comes with a playlist!

last exploit I remember of winamp

Was when that disaster known as Winamp TV came out. Porn site operators found out rather quickly you could incorporate pop-up ads when you connect to their streams. A simple preference change stopped this.

Problem?

This was patched over a week ago, http://www.incidents.org/diary.php?date=2006-01-31 [incidents.org] (bottom).
The time from exploit to patch was very fast.
better then the length it takes other software developers to release a patch..
http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.h tml [eeye.com]

Earlier versions may also be affected.

why so detailed?!

anyone know if this is a 5.x problem? I still use 2.91. couldn't find any reliable info anywhere :(

Still lite

winamp is still lite, you dont HAVE to install the extra features.
you dont HAVE to install the library,
you dont HAVE to install the modern skin support,

remove those 2 and your practicaly using winamp 2.9 with alot of bug fixes and speedups... so i dont see what all the complaining and whining is about

Version 5.13 Already Out

That information would have been useful had WinAmp not told me that version 5.13 was already available. A WEEK AGO!

I don't know what's worse on Slashdot, a dupe, a roland, or old news.

Winamp

Winamp is now just bloatware. With all the features added to the software, the stability dropped like a rock. I was an avid user until I purchased an iPod and have been using iTunes ever since.

And confusing the issue...

This has absolutely nothing to do with Sunbelt Computer Systems, their PL/B implementation, or PL/B source files (extension .pls). (Oh, the fun I had keeping WinAmp from opening my source code....)

Meh

Winamp is just a backup player for me now. Mostly I use Media Player Classic because it uses AC3Filter to Dolby-Surround decode my MP3s to 5.1.

Just one question

Are there more computers running OS X than there are active copies of WinAMP?

If so, why are there currently no OS X viruses yet when we see an active WinAMP exploit?

Food for thought.

Again?

Winamp is the Internet Explorer of mp3 players. It's had a massive amount of vulnerabilities. This is the third playlist vulnerability alone: see the other two [securityfocus.com]. Are they going to do a code audit, or will we see the same kind of vulnerabilities again and again?

I moved to a player with a good media library years ago. Even if that's not for you, consider something like Foobar2000.

Jeez. I use Winamp 2.10

It was the latest one out when I was putting software on my system.

It works flawlessly. It's teenie-tiny. It's appealing to look at. . .

Am I missing something here. . ? The only reason I ever go for updates on software is in the hope that an annoying design flaw is fixed, or that a much-needed feature will be added. When I finally load something onto my machine which does exactly what I want, I sigh with relief and then move on to other interests.

I'm fairly certain guys like me are not well liked around the headquarters of Commercialism Inc.

Software doesn't crap out after 2 years of use, but I guess with everybody so well programmed into thinking, "Old=Bad", that even when consumers step into the virtual world, they don't need to own products filled with time-bomb parts designed to fail after a set period. People are kind of chumpy this way. As my grampy used to tell me, "Buy it good, buy it once, learn how to fix it yourself."

Of course, that doesn't mean people shouldn't create new things for the sake of play; Playing means seeing what can be done next, what innovation can be whipped up. Playing is fun. But for computer music players, I don't really care. I have music. It plays. Why all the fuss?

People like to fuss.

-FL

An alternative to winamp...

Alternatively, you can use Coolplayer, cuz it's as lite as it gets. http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] And I agree, Winamp2 used to be the best (music) player....

Re:Why don't they make a law...

Because there is nothing wrong with fucking up your own computer.
There is nothing wrong with telling people how to fuck up their computers as well.

There is however something wrong if you use these tools to automatically fuck up other peoples computers.

Re:Why don't they make a law...

A legal solution to a technical problem will never work. The involvement of politicians likely won't lead to secure consumer-grade software.

The best thing to do is to use technologies that encourage secure programming. We're talking about garbage collected languages, for instance, that reduce the risks of buffer overflows. And beyond that, start using BSD or Linux rather than Windows. Of course the list goes on and on.

Re:javascript, always (*(&^JAVASCRIPT

Since the wide cross-section of webpage statistics I view always seems to show 97%
of the browsers having this enabled, the "solution" is a non-issue.

The people I've set up who care about safer browsing have accepted my turning off
Javascript in IE6 and leaving it on with Firefox. They are free to choose whichever.

And if a webpage cannot display with either client -- they don't need to got there.