RE: Infected jpeg files?

• Previous message: Greg Wirth: "Re[2]: vi buffer overflow"
• Maybe in reply to: rginskiat_private: "Infected jpeg files?"
• Next in thread: Thorat_private: "RE: Infected jpeg files?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Actually, they finally found one early october 2001.  Primary reference:
http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/provos/stego/abc.html

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Ediger [mailto:eballen1at_private]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:31 AM
> To: OBrien, Brennan
> Cc: vuln-devat_private
> Subject: RE: Infected jpeg files?
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, OBrien, Brennan wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> The view that "internet images transmit encoded data" is thoroughly
> discredited:  see 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/21829.html
> 
> Some researchers examined two million images from eBay, and 
> found not a
> single image containing steganographically encoded data. 
> Primary source:
> http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-01-11.pdf
> 
> But that's neither here nor there in the context of whether 
> the dopey IE
> warning about viruses in images is correct.
> 

• Next message: Thorat_private: "RE: Infected jpeg files?"
• Previous message: Greg Wirth: "Re[2]: vi buffer overflow"
• Maybe in reply to: rginskiat_private: "Infected jpeg files?"
• Next in thread: Thorat_private: "RE: Infected jpeg files?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 09 2001 - 12:17:29 PST