Well, just my two cents here... Given that images are a major way of transmitting encoded data, it stands to reason that the hooks could exist -- that is, it could be a transport mechanism. However, the viewer itself would have to know to look for them and have the capability of doing something with them. In otherwords, just cause I'm speaking in Japanese to you doesn't mean you understand what I'm saying. -----Original Message----- From: rginskiat_private [mailto:rginskiat_private] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:23 PM To: vuln-devat_private Subject: Infected jpeg files? Mailer: SecurityFocus Is it possible for a virus to infect a jpeg (*.jpg) file, then the jpg file to infect other files?...without changing the files characteristics? In other words, a jpeg file (file.jpg) is infected and it remains "infected_file.jpg". It is possible for a file type as jpeg to have a payload or cause damage although it's just being viewed? Perhaps something like steganagraphy...except embedding vbs (or something) causing infection by way of the viewer? I guess another way of asking the question is: Is it possible to get infected by just viewing jpeg files? I realize that's a "wide open question" I just don't know how else to explain myself. Thanks in advance for your patience and help.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 21:58:49 PST