←back to thread

FFmpeg dealing with a security researcher

(twitter.com)
104 points trollied | 7 comments | 01 Nov 25 20:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
TheChaplain ◴[01 Nov 25 21:42 UTC] No.45785676[source]▶
The comments from the public.. Just wow we are doomed..

To explain, Googles vulnerability scanner found a problem in an obscure decoder for a 1990s game files (Lucasfilm Smush). Devs are not happy they get timewasting reports on stuff that rarely anyone ever uses except an exceptionally tiny group.

Then people start berating them without even knowing the full story...

replies(3): >>45785704 #>>45785787 #>>45786348 #
haskellshill ◴[01 Nov 25 23:11 UTC] No.45786348[source]▶
>rarely anyone ever uses

It's enabled by default so all that's required to exploit it would be to construct a payload file and name it movie.mp4

replies(1): >>45786470 #
1. defrost ◴[01 Nov 25 23:31 UTC] No.45786470[source]▶
If only Google had the ability to custom compile FFmpeg to only include robust mainstream codecs.

In such a would they might even handball submitted obscure codecs to a full build in a sandbox to track bleeding edge malware.

replies(2): >>45786561 #>>45789812 #
2. Ukv ◴[01 Nov 25 23:45 UTC] No.45786561[source]▶
To my understanding this bug would affect anyone using ffmpeg on untrusted input. Google may already be limiting to certain codecs in their own use, but should still report the issue (as they have here).
replies(1): >>45787710 #
3. GaryBluto ◴[02 Nov 25 03:41 UTC] No.45787710[source]▶
Yeah but who cares about them, right? It's a volunteer project don't you know.
4. haskellshill ◴[02 Nov 25 12:25 UTC] No.45789812[source]▶
Right, they probably already mitigated this bug in their own usage. Which is exactly why reporting the bug is a FAVOR to ffmpeg. Would you rather they just quietly fix it on their own and not report it to the maintainers?
replies(2): >>45789870 #>>45792499 #
5. defrost ◴[02 Nov 25 12:36 UTC] No.45789870[source]▶
> Right, they probably already mitigated this bug in their own usage.

Indeed. A step so obvious it renders comments such as this:

  It's enabled by default so all that's required to exploit it would be to construct a payload file and name it movie.mp4
moot.

> Which is exactly why reporting the bug is a FAVOR to ffmpeg.

Not sure you have to SHOUT the obvious.

> Would you rather they just quietly fix it on their own and not report it to the maintainers?

What do you suppose the answer to that question to be?

replies(1): >>45796087 #
6. array_key_first ◴[02 Nov 25 18:54 UTC] No.45792499[source]▶
I would rather they fix it and submit a patch like normal fucking people.
7. Rebelgecko ◴[03 Nov 25 05:22 UTC] No.45796087{3}[source]▶
There's this weird "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation on social media where people try to help and get reamed for not doing enough. Taylor Swift donated $500k to charity and people complaining she didn't round up to a million. After all, she can afford it.

But she ends up getting more criticism than the billionaire who donates nothing. Seems unfair but I guess it's human nature.