WinXP and WinAmp Vulnerable to Malicious MP3s 505
mypenwry writes "Foundstone, a Mission Viejo, CA security
services company, is reporting several vulnerabilities that would allow malicious
code embedded in MP3 and WMA files to be executed via WinXP and WinAmp. WinAmp
versions 2.81 and 3.0 are vulnerable
to buffer overflows via certain long ID3v2 tags when MP3 files are loaded.
More troubling is the WinXP
vulnerability: A buffer overflow exists in Explorer's automatic reading
of MP3 or WMA (Windows Media Audio) file attributes in Windows XP. An attacker
could create a malicious MP3 or WMA file, that if placed in an accessed folder
on a Windows XP system, would compromise the system and allow for remote code
execution. The MP3 does not need to be played, it simply needs to be stored in
a folder that is browsed to, such as an MP3 download folder, the desktop, or a
NetBIOS share. This vulnerability is also exploitable via Internet Explorer by
loading a malicious web site. Explorer automatically reads file attributes regardless
of whether or not the user actually highlights, clicks on, reads, or opens the
file. Windows XP's Explorer will overflow if corrupted attributes exist within
the MP3 or WMA file. Microsoft
has issued a fix for this vulnerability. Nullsoft has posted fixed version of WinAmp 2.81 and 3.0 on their web site."
Buffer overflow yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
won't affect most people (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a sad day when... (Score:2, Interesting)
So click the update button (Score:4, Interesting)
How long before... (Score:3, Interesting)
Versions?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a reason they haven't released a new version with the bugfix instead of just uploading a new copy with the _same release number and date_? Both versions are listed as released in early or middle August, and there's no bugfixes listed anywhere on the site in regards to this. Site [winamp.com]. Are they trying to hide that it's been fixed, or just don't want anyone to figure it out?
WILL affect most people (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think so. I know people who download a lot of stuff, and if you have it set up to download 100 MP3s overnight, your system could be compromised by morning. Are you going to listen to those 100 MP3s first thing in the morning?
The kicker is that the odds you get compromised go up greatly if someone seeds Kazaa, or even a web page, with an infected MP3 file. They can see who is downloading it so they know the IP to attack. On a web page, they could get your IP out of the logs. I never thought an MP3 file would leave a system vulnerable, but I guess that is why this is a pretty scary vulnerability - nobody else would either.
Microsoft Security (Score:0, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Buffer overflow yet again (Score:2, Interesting)
Palladium
Oh wait, you don't want that.
So what do you want?
How does a buffer overflow allow code execution? (Score:2, Interesting)
llama (Score:2, Interesting)
my vinyl never buffer overflowed, you just couldn't dance too close to the record player.
CERT Adivsory: Auto Advance track on All models and versions of record players.
Proof of concept: Jumping up and down.
Patch: Upgrade to CD's but not mp3's.
The Next Nimda. (Score:4, Interesting)
When all of the college students here on campus had read/write shares on the network, Nimda Spread at an alarming rate, Especially since WinXP Home decided that you SHOULD have your Shared Documents folder open for read/write access after running one of those networking wizards.
I could only imagine the hell a Modified Nimda would be if it can now infect mp3 files. It wouldn't even have to spread infected
It's the RIAA Dream come true
Is iTunes vulnerable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me full disclosure...
Re:Subject : Name : AC (Score:3, Interesting)
Much like people used to claim in days of old that certain message base formats (BBS / FTN message 'echoes') were faster than others, this is also a bit of rubbish. The format doesn't contain vulnerabilities; the players that implement the format have vulnerabilities. It is, in point of fact, perfectly feasable to assume that the same, if only slightly different vulnerability could possibly be exploited with the Ogg Vorbis format.
Unchecked buffers (read: lazy/braindead programming and poor code audits) are at fault here. MP3 is merely the current carrier.
But you're right; it is a feeble excuse to switch formats. It would be more apt to suggest that people switch to a different [musicmatch.com] player [xmms.org], or use a different [apple.com] operating [linux.org] system [freebsd.org], but I'm not going to do that.
Build #'s and Winamp strangeness (Score:3, Interesting)
What if this IS the plan? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if the EULA on the MS patch for this will be overreaching and invasive?
CDDB (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Buffer overflow yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
a project that tries to catch buffer
overflows under linux.
freshmeat entry [freshmeat.net]
homepage [avayalabs.com]
Question for slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
So my question is, does anyone have any idea what this "new level of abstraction" might be?
Re:Subject : Name : AC (Score:3, Interesting)
Conspiracy theorist? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure which is worse:
a) Those that imagine everything MS does is attempt to rule the world
b) Those that imagine every posting mentioning a bug in MS is a covert attack.
Considering the amount of geeks here that are into Mp3's, or those that maintain networks (with users who play downloaded Mp3's, permitted or not), this warning sounds like it fits well on slashdot.
Re:In defense of Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course when there is no shareholder value to increase, priorities change. For examples of how this system works, please observe GNU/Linux.
Or, more accurately, please observe GNU/Hurd which is a project several years old that is still nowhere near to a 1.0 release.
Microsoft releases buggy software. So does Redhat. So does Debian. In fact, anyone who releases any reasonably complex code (and an entire operating system with loads of supporting packages is pretty damn complex) and claims that their code is entirely bug-free is lying. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Redhat 6 had a remote root exploit in its default install. Even OpenBSD, that bastion of religious security auditing, discovered recently that it was distributing a package with a hole in it.
The simple reason is that you have to put up with releasing buggy software because otherwise you will never release. No QA system will be able to get rid of all the bugs. The best you can do is prioritise the bugs you have and try and get the most significant ones fixed in time for a reasonable shipping date.
In terms of how good/buggy MS's code is, I think it's fantastic in some areas and terrible in others. I think that they are relatively weak and often irresponsible when it comes to security but they are learning. They share the same problems as any massive software development organisation, which is that as you grow it gets harder to enforce regimented coding practices. God knows they really have no excuse for bounds-checking errors (given the number of implementations of safe arrays they have lying around) other than policing this stuff is very hard, especially when it comes to legacy code.
Besides, as I said earlier, OSS projects have security holes all the time. They just tend to be patched faster and have a smaller impact (due to smaller, more savvy audiences)
-- Yoz
Re:XMMS too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds to me like the XMMS bug would never have been found (or at least not for a long while) if not for Microsoft/Winamp. You must be proud.
Re:In defense of Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that I said tend to. I recall that Mozilla had a couple of nasty exploits that were known about for months before being properly fixed.
There's also the fact that "issuing a patch" can be an entirely different process for two different projects. OSS patches are usually:
whereas, in MS's case, it probably looks more like:
So yes, OSS is often faster, but you can see why. OSS is better able to handle a patch breaking something for some users, because it'll probably only be installed by power users who'll put up with it and know how to roll back, and the patch can be followed by a better patch. If a WU patch breaks something, even for only 10% of users, it's potentially disastrous because it's going out to everyone and 10% is still several million.
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me the solution is to whack budding programmers' knuckles with a ruler until they get in the habit of using bounds checking with each and every buffer their program requires, written on the spot and not tacked on as an afterthought. But considering that probably half the coders out there are self-taught and still have whatever good or bad habits they started with.. *sigh*
Linux Security - Re:Buffer overflow yet again (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a kernel level patch so that nothing can be executed in the stack, but a lot of people don't seem to want it. Actually, I think there are two competing patches. One of them is called Openwall [openwall.com].
There are also libraries to combat this sort of problem as well. Such as the one another poster listed...
Re:Question for slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
Lisp.
There's even been an OS built in the language. Seemed to work just fine. Problem was, that in those days, you needed special purpose hardware to run a Lisp-based OS on. You don't anymore, but the code has been lost to people who could do something useful with it in the mist of time and bankruptcy. Google for Genera and OpenGenera. Hint - once the base code is built into the system, you cannot have buffer overflows, uncaught exceptions, or uncaught arithmetic overflows. It's a good environment (as I can attest, having it running on my Symbolics Lisp Machine at home).
Oh yeah, they have a great OO database, decent graphics, and all of the web crap you'll ever need, too.
Re:Pathetic (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a downside to bounds checking though: The natural evolution of the idea is a "managed" model like
But considering that probably half the coders out there are self-taught and still have whatever good or bad habits they started with..
This has nothing to do with being self-taught or not: It has to do with the standards and processes that an organization sets on its code. It also has to do with a boss saying "I want all these features by next week as the top priority!" in reply to "I should probably spend some time hardening the code and auditing it for potential exploits" (a very, very common scenario).
Curious... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the name Micro$oft appears on a product, it's guaranteed unsafe... if you are running a product on a Micro$oft product, it's guaranteed unsafe.
I know Linux isn't perfect[to some it is], I know MAC OS isn't[to some it is], I know Windows isn't perfect[If anyone thinks it is, get informed then talk to me] Each have their own good and bad points but one of these takes the bad points from the other two, multiplies them by 10 and puts a price tag on it that is insane compared to the other two... GUESS WHO?