Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Andy, May 11, 2006.

  1. Andy

    Andy Guest

    Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?

    I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
    getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.

    I am running XP Pro/SP2.
     
    Andy, May 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Not if you got the latest updates...

    --
    .~. Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
    /( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.16
    ^ ^ 20:07:01 up 4:34 1 user load average: 1.00 1.04 1.01
    news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
     
    Man-wai Chang, May 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. From: "Andy" <>

    | Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?

    | I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
    | getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.

    | I am running XP Pro/SP2.

    If the Media Player is properly patched -- No.
     
    David H. Lipman, May 11, 2006
    #3
  4. Andy

    Ludovic Joly Guest

    There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
    security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
    also protect your soul from explicit content.
     
    Ludovic Joly, May 11, 2006
    #4
  5. From: "Ludovic Joly" <>

    ||
    | There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
    | security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
    | also protect your soul from explicit content.

    That's funny :)
     
    David H. Lipman, May 11, 2006
    #5
  6. Note "got", not "*think* you got"! Lately *Automatic* Updates (the
    automatic/icon/popup version) has been notorious in being days and even
    weeks late compared to *Windows* Update (the browser version) [1], so
    check with *Windows* Update that you have all the latest stuff.

    [1] The Microsoft servers give priority to Windows Update over Automatic
    Updates. Often Automatic Updates can *say* that there are updates
    available for your computer, but not actually (fully) *download*, let
    alone *install*, them until days/weeks later. For the gory details, see
    the logs (in my case, XP Pro SP2, "Windows Update.log" and
    "WindowsUpdate.log" (in C:\WINDOWS), especially the latter),
    specifically the "DnldMgr * Update is not allowed to download due to
    regulation." messages.
     
    Frank Slootweg, May 11, 2006
    #6
  7. Andy

    Leythos Guest

    Opening any files you open "Can" present a danger, but the scope of the
    threat can be limited.

    Windows media player has had several exploits, as long as you patch your
    system with all security updates, you will be as safe as possible at
    that time - notice I didn't say you would be safe, I said safe AS
    POSSIBLE.
     
    Leythos, May 11, 2006
    #7
  8. Andy

    Unruh Guest

    YOu will be safer not opening them. So the question was as to the
    comparative safety. There have been so many exploits, and the time between
    the exploit being used and patched is some number of days ( lets say 10)
    Thus, your safety if you patch is 10 days out of 365/Number of exploits per
    year. Even with only one exploit a year, relying on patching gives you a
    safety of only 3%-- ie you have a 3% chance of being hit if someone attacks
    you once a year. If they attack you 30 times a year with the latest
    exploit they have about 100% chance of getting in. Does that sound safe?o
    Now if you never do anything that could trigger the exploit you will not be
    broken into.
    Ie, relying on patching to keep you safe is a rediculously insecure way of
    behaving.
    It is certainly necessary ( since y ou can raise those odds to 100% per
    attempt if you never patch, and 3% is better than 100%) but should not even
    be your 10th line of defence.
     
    Unruh, May 11, 2006
    #8
  9. From: "Unruh" <>


    |
    | YOu will be safer not opening them. So the question was as to the
    | comparative safety. There have been so many exploits, and the time between
    | the exploit being used and patched is some number of days ( lets say 10)
    | Thus, your safety if you patch is 10 days out of 365/Number of exploits per
    | year. Even with only one exploit a year, relying on patching gives you a
    | safety of only 3%-- ie you have a 3% chance of being hit if someone attacks
    | you once a year. If they attack you 30 times a year with the latest
    | exploit they have about 100% chance of getting in. Does that sound safe?o
    | Now if you never do anything that could trigger the exploit you will not be
    | broken into.
    | Ie, relying on patching to keep you safe is a rediculously insecure way of
    | behaving.
    | It is certainly necessary ( since y ou can raise those odds to 100% per
    | attempt if you never patch, and 3% is better than 100%) but should not even
    | be your 10th line of defence.
    |

    Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.

    Live in fear, die in despair.
     
    David H. Lipman, May 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Andy

    edgewalker Guest

    Some media filetypes (with mediaplayer) allow the firing up of IE and the
    included URL will be visited. If a "bad" site wants visitors, then populating
    p2p with "bad" mediafiles is an option for them.

    My advice is to put Windows Media Trojan in the trash bin - and I don't
    care what version or how updated Microsoft says it is. Microsoft somehow
    decided to include this stupid feature though it is configurable in new versions
    I've heard.
     
    edgewalker, May 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Andy

    Zak Guest

    The vid is probably no good anyway.
     
    Zak, May 11, 2006
    #11
  12. | The vid is probably no good anyway.

    That's a broad statement. What WMV ? I have sen some great porno shorts in WMV format.
    :)

    I also work for a NJ, USA, music promoter and have viewed some great WMVs dealing with short
    music videos and promos.

    WMV is not a file format to fear.
     
    David H. Lipman, May 11, 2006
    #12
  13. From: "edgewalker" <>

    ..
    |
    | Some media filetypes (with mediaplayer) allow the firing up of IE and the
    | included URL will be visited. If a "bad" site wants visitors, then populating
    | p2p with "bad" mediafiles is an option for them.
    |
    | My advice is to put Windows Media Trojan in the trash bin - and I don't
    | care what version or how updated Microsoft says it is. Microsoft somehow
    | decided to include this stupid feature though it is configurable in new versions
    | I've heard.
    |

    Notice I said "the Media Player" not specifically a Microsoft product/utility :)
     
    David H. Lipman, May 11, 2006
    #13
  14. Minding you, any DRM software is something you clearly don't want on
    your computer.
    When removing at least the DRM client components, WMP tells the same.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, May 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Andy

    edgewalker Guest

    ....and a good thing you did :))

    Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
    because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :)) Subjective as the
    definition is, most people wouldn't want this feature if they knew about it.
     
    edgewalker, May 12, 2006
    #15
  16. In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
    the implementation proofs it.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, May 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Andy

    edgewalker Guest

    DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil. The problem I stated with
    WMP is probably a deal Billy struck with the foistware crowd. Sorta makes
    you rethink how all those IE exploits remain "unpatched". WMP makes a sys
    call to the foistware handler i.e. IE. :))
     
    edgewalker, May 13, 2006
    #17
  18. No, as it's not necessary at all.
    This has been fixed in MSDRM v3 Build 3802 (KB891122) and has never been
    any issue to systems where the DRM client component is removed.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, May 13, 2006
    #18
  19. Andy

    kurt wismer Guest

    ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
    a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
     
    kurt wismer, May 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang. The correct
    term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some people claim
    it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is scientifically and
    even obviously wrong. ;-D
    This is not about power, it's about money. There's no chance to keep up
    using a trojan horse to use a customers computer against him without any
    agreement (that he didn't give). And even then it would be illegal in
    most countries whichs copyright laws require enforceability of fair use
    even against the right holder's non-consent.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, May 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.