Security bug in Winamp

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Piotr Makley, May 26, 2004.

  1. Piotr Makley

    Piotr Makley Guest

    A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my Winamp
    2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934

    So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website. My
    MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.

    I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download but I
    can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me where the
    fixed download is?

    Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should use
    instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I don't
    want anything which has poor quality replay capability. And I
    definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.
     
    Piotr Makley, May 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Piotr Makley

    Bloned Guest

    Piotr Makley wrote:
    > A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my Winamp
    > 2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934
    >
    > So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website. My
    > MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.
    >
    > I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download but I
    > can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me where the
    > fixed download is?
    >
    > Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should use
    > instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I don't
    > want anything which has poor quality replay capability. And I
    > definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.


    www.oldversion.com has 2.81, don't know if it's the fixed one. If you want a
    low resource player check out Foobar at http://www.foobar2000.org/

    --
    b l o n e d at h o t m a i l dot c o m


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22-5-04
     
    Bloned, May 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:01:35 GMT, Piotr Makley <>
    wrote:

    >A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my Winamp
    >2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934
    >
    >So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website. My
    >MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.
    >
    >I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download but I
    >can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me where the
    >fixed download is?
    >
    >Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should use
    >instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I don't
    >want anything which has poor quality replay capability. And I
    >definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.


    Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    Go get winamp 5 from

    http://www.winamp.com

    Its still free, it still does not have any stinking adware
    and Justin has defected from the evil empire of AOL.

    However, at present the website seems to be down

    http://www.nullsoft.com is a bit cryptic too, could the
    lama have eaten the website?
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Piotr Makley

    Bloned Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:
    >> definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.

    >
    > Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    > Go get winamp 5 from
    >

    Aliens got nothing to do with the fact that winamp 2.81 is small and does
    the job I want it for, I'm sticking with it.

    --
    b l o n e d at h o t m a i l dot c o m


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.691 / Virus Database: 452 - Release Date: 26-5-04
     
    Bloned, May 26, 2004
    #4
  5. On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:01:35 GMT, Piotr Makley <>
    wrote:

    >A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my Winamp
    >2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934
    >
    >So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website. My
    >MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.
    >
    >I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download but I
    >can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me where the
    >fixed download is?
    >
    >Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should use
    >instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I don't
    >want anything which has poor quality replay capability. And I
    >definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.



    I've replaced Winamp by Quitessantials
    and I'm not intending to go back to Winamp after the version 3
    debacle... They are ok,... but Quint is better, stable, good-looking
    and potent.
    http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/live_streaming_music.html


    --
    www.nondisputandum.com

    Protect, clean, tools, office, webbuilding
    newsfeeds, entertainment, searching
    + the internet addiction test!
     
    NonDisputandum.com, May 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Piotr Makley

    Roger Hunt Guest

    In article <>, Bloned <don'>
    writes
    >Jim Watt wrote:
    >>> definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.

    >>
    >> Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    >> Go get winamp 5 from
    >>

    >Aliens got nothing to do with the fact that winamp 2.81 is small and does
    >the job I want it for, I'm sticking with it.
    >

    Winamp 2.62 is presumably even smaller and more perfectly formed ... ?
    Does the job here anyway, and works with W95.
    --
    Roger Hunt
     
    Roger Hunt, May 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:53:14 +0200, "Bloned" <don'>
    wrote:

    >Jim Watt wrote:
    >>> definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.

    >>
    >> Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    >> Go get winamp 5 from
    >>

    >Aliens got nothing to do with the fact that winamp 2.81 is small and does
    >the job I want it for, I'm sticking with it.


    OK.

    I tried Ultraplayer and also Destiny Media Player
    which is good for some net radio stations.

    Winamp 5 promises video and seems to have
    overcome the V3 dogginess to really whip that
    other animal's arse.

    Its also compatible with the SDK commands that
    controlled Winamp 2.xx from third party applications
    like one I wrote.

    It really depends what you want to do with it, as
    writing a small MP3 player is trivial now the
    MS dll's support .mp3

    Version 5 takes up around 10mb ,compared to
    1.5mb for version 2.5c not exactly bloatware.
    looks good to me.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 26, 2004
    #7
  8. Roger Hunt <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Bloned
    > <don'> writes
    >>Jim Watt wrote:
    >>>> definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.
    >>>
    >>> Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    >>> Go get winamp 5 from
    >>>

    >>Aliens got nothing to do with the fact that winamp 2.81 is
    >>small and does the job I want it for, I'm sticking with it.
    >>

    > Winamp 2.62 is presumably even smaller and more perfectly
    > formed ... ? Does the job here anyway, and works with W95.



    That version also has the security problem.
     
    Peter Rossiter, May 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

    >>A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my
    >>Winamp 2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934
    >>
    >>So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website.
    >>My MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.
    >>
    >>I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download
    >>but I can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me
    >>where the fixed download is?
    >>
    >>Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should
    >>use instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I
    >>don't want anything which has poor quality replay capability.
    >>And I definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.

    >
    > Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    > Go get winamp 5 from
    >
    > http://www.winamp.com
    >
    > Its still free, it still does not have any stinking adware
    > and Justin has defected from the evil empire of AOL.



    Is it light and fast?

    Is it hi-fi?
     
    Peter Rossiter, May 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Piotr Makley

    Roger Hunt Guest

    In article <94F6BBC5CBC5D471AE@130.133.1.4>, Peter Rossiter
    <> writes
    >Roger Hunt <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Bloned
    >> <don'> writes
    >>>Jim Watt wrote:
    >>>>> definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.
    >>>>
    >>>> Uh have you been abducted by aliens? 2.81 is old news.
    >>>> Go get winamp 5 from
    >>>>
    >>>Aliens got nothing to do with the fact that winamp 2.81 is
    >>>small and does the job I want it for, I'm sticking with it.
    >>>

    >> Winamp 2.62 is presumably even smaller and more perfectly
    >> formed ... ? Does the job here anyway, and works with W95.

    >
    >That version also has the security problem.


    Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it through my
    hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem there)
    --
    Roger Hunt
     
    Roger Hunt, May 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    <> wrote:

    >Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it through my
    >hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem there)


    Beware of memory leaks :)

    I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:34:06 +0100, Peter Rossiter <>
    wrote:

    (winamp 5)

    >Is it light and fast?
    >
    >Is it hi-fi?


    I'm sure that question has been asked about .mp3 a lot
    - not its not, but its convenient, compact and it sounds
    good. Winamp 5 is nice.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Piotr Makley

    Piotr Makley Guest

    Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

    > On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >>I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it
    >>through my hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem
    >>there)

    >
    > Beware of memory leaks :)
    >
    > I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.



    The Quad 303 is prone to leaky capacitors! Watch out. :)
     
    Piotr Makley, May 28, 2004
    #13
  14. Piotr Makley

    Roger Hunt Guest

    In article <>, Piotr
    Makley <> writes
    >Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >>>I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it
    >>>through my hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem
    >>>there)

    >>
    >> Beware of memory leaks :)
    >>

    Me or the amp?
    >
    >> I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.

    >
    >The Quad 303 is prone to leaky capacitors! Watch out. :)


    What sort of vintage is the 303/33, out of interest?
    --
    Roger Hunt
     
    Roger Hunt, May 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:46:05 GMT, Piotr Makley <>
    wrote:

    >Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >>>I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it
    >>>through my hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem
    >>>there)

    >>
    >> Beware of memory leaks :)
    >>
    >> I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.

    >
    >
    >The Quad 303 is prone to leaky capacitors! Watch out. :)


    Already changed them just in case.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 28, 2004
    #15
  16. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:31:47 +0100, Roger Hunt
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Piotr
    >Makley <> writes
    >>Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >>>>I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it
    >>>>through my hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem
    >>>>there)
    >>>
    >>> Beware of memory leaks :)
    >>>

    >Me or the amp?
    >>
    >>> I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.

    >>
    >>The Quad 303 is prone to leaky capacitors! Watch out. :)

    >
    >What sort of vintage is the 303/33, out of interest?


    I think I bought it 1973, its worked most days since. Good
    value for money over time.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 28, 2004
    #16
  17. Piotr Makley

    Piotr Makley Guest

    Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

    >>In article
    >><>, Piotr
    >>Makley <> writes
    >>>Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:10 +0100, Roger Hunt
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Oh dear .... thanks for the info.
    >>>>>I think I'll transfer all my music to tape and just play it
    >>>>>through my hifi system. (1970s Leak - no security problem
    >>>>>there)
    >>>>
    >>>> Beware of memory leaks :)
    >>>>

    >>Me or the amp?
    >>>
    >>>> I bought the Quad 303/33 goes well with Winamp.
    >>>
    >>>The Quad 303 is prone to leaky capacitors! Watch out. :)

    >>
    >>What sort of vintage is the 303/33, out of interest?

    >
    > I think I bought it 1973, its worked most days since. Good
    > value for money over time.
    > --



    That was about the same time I bought mine.

    I keep the 303 inverted to stop electolytic fluid escaping from the
    tops of the capacitors.

    I think the 33 is a bit old hat but the 303 is sweet.
     
    Piotr Makley, May 28, 2004
    #17
  18. Piotr Makley

    Piotr Makley Guest

    Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

    > I tried Ultraplayer and also Destiny Media Player
    > which is good for some net radio stations.
    >
    > Winamp 5 promises video and seems to have
    > overcome the V3 dogginess to really whip that
    > other animal's arse.
    >
    > Its also compatible with the SDK commands that
    > controlled Winamp 2.xx from third party applications
    > like one I wrote.
    >
    > It really depends what you want to do with it, as
    > writing a small MP3 player is trivial now the
    > MS dll's support .mp3



    Does Microsoft's DLL provide properly good quality reproduction?

    >
    > Version 5 takes up around 10mb ,compared to
    > 1.5mb for version 2.5c not exactly bloatware.
    > looks good to me.
    >
     
    Piotr Makley, May 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Piotr Makley

    Piotr Makley Guest

    NonDisputandum.com <webmaster_remove@remove_nondisputandum.com>
    wrote:

    >>A few months ago I heard there was a security exposure in my
    >>Winamp 2.81. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/303934
    >>
    >>So I disabled one of the DLLs as instructed by some website.
    >>My MP3s now have *lots* of background noise.
    >>
    >>I am told there is a fixed Winamp 2.81 which I can download
    >>but I can't find it on the Winamp site. Can someone tell me
    >>where the fixed download is?
    >>
    >>Or is there a different free "high-fidelity" player I should
    >>use instead of Winamp? I don't want anything bloated! And I
    >>don't want anything which has poor quality replay capability.
    >>And I definitely don't want anything with ad-ware.

    >
    >
    > I've replaced Winamp by Quitessantials
    > and I'm not intending to go back to Winamp after the version 3
    > debacle... They are ok,... but Quint is better, stable,
    > good-looking and potent.
    > http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/live_streaming_music.html



    I find that Quintessential (sic) has a fiddly interface with some
    buttons only a few pixels wide.
     
    Piotr Makley, May 28, 2004
    #19
  20. Piotr Makley

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2004 21:23:13 GMT, Piotr Makley <>
    wrote:

    >Does Microsoft's DLL provide properly good quality reproduction?


    It sounds OK to me.

    mp3 is a compromise really, I haven't carried out any detailed
    listening tests to compare ATRAC and various mp3 encoders
    and decoders, but they all beat the crap out of older tape
    devices and the snap crackle and pop of vinyl.

    see: http://www.minidisc.org/keep/atracmp3.pdf

    I've been doing some comparisons between the Early
    Music Show on BBC R3 off digital satellite and the
    Real media streamed off their website at 50kbs its
    surprisingly good, but you can hear artifacts.

    We've come a long way since the wind-up gramophone.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 28, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. COMSOLIT Messmer

    IT-Security, Security, e-security

    COMSOLIT Messmer, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    658
    COMSOLIT Messmer
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. janet_princess_2k
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    525
    janet_princess_2k
    Aug 9, 2006
  3. A bug catalogue for bug lovers!

    , Sep 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    572
  4. Ed
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    620
  5. Tester

    Winamp 5.35 security u/g

    Tester, May 18, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    504
    Tester
    May 20, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page