3 ms·
You could have a buffer overflow attack talking advantage of a specific popular video player out there. Since video players are usually not very security focus
by ktta 10y ago
You could have a buffer overflow attack talking advantage of a specific popular video player out there.
Since video players are usually not very security focused, someone determined could do it.
And since video torrents are unzipped, a single chunk can be replaced with the malicious chunk with the attack code. It can look like a tiny jitter depending on the chunk size/total video size.
- throwaway2048 10y agoYou could just do this with a video you release anyways, and skip the century of GPU runtime. This break requires you control/generate both the original and the evil file.
- svantana 10y agoMy thought exactly, although you would need your malware to incubate for some time to allow it to spread properly first.
- mlonkibjuyhv 10y agoI wonder if you could model this similarly to populations. As in will the malware ever go extinct? Obviously an attacker probably won't stop seeding, but let's say shim does stop seeding. At this point x% of seeders have the payload. Seeders on average share the file y times. Will x tend to zero below a threshold of 50%? And if the attacker does not stop seeding, will the infected quota stabilize?
- Bartweiss 10y agoCouldn't you get nearly the same intermittent-attack behavior just by saying something like "break out of codec, only do malicious behavior one time in 1,000"?
- Bartweiss 10y agoYep, and even if you feel the need for low-frequency attacks to keep seeding high, you could probably just fix a low chance of actually executing malicious behavior.