[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: [Full-Disclosure] JPEG AV Detection
- To: "Mailing List - Full-Disclosure" <full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: FW: [Full-Disclosure] JPEG AV Detection
- From: "Todd Towles" <toddtowles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:26:26 -0500
What exactly are the AV products detecting in the JPEG exploits? Barry
and I was talking about how impressed we were that the AV companies
jumped on this one and detection was pretty fast. But is the detection
so generic that a variant will bypass? Is the detection based on a
original exploit that could be modified in a way that makes it
"undetectable" right now?
-Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Fitzgerald [mailto:bkfsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:55 PM
To: Todd Towles
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1933 -
20 msgs
Todd Towles wrote:
>Yep, really surprised. Just hopefully the invalid data that is being
>detected can't be changed or worked in a work that would bypass normal
>detection. Once the file is renamed to a BMP or a GIF, you confuse the
>whole thing even more.
>
>Are the AV products hitting on a part of the original exploit? Can this
>part be changed in a future version to make it "undetectable". I am
>very impressed at the work of the AV companines on this one, but I also
>know that is this detection is too simple, that it will be bypassed.
>
>
>
I'm not sure what they're specifically detecting. This may be a good
question for the list.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html