←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
phkahler ◴[] No.45891830[source]
From TFA this was telling:

Thus, as Mark Atwood, an open source policy expert, pointed out on Twitter, he had to keep telling Amazon to not do things that would mess up FFmpeg because, he had to keep explaining to his bosses that “They are not a vendor, there is no NDA, we have no leverage, your VP has refused to help fund them, and they could kill three major product lines tomorrow with an email. So, stop, and listen to me … ”

I agree with the headline here. If Google can pay someone to find bugs, they can pay someone to fix them. How many time have managers said "Don't come to me with problems, come with solutions"

replies(8): >>45891966 #>>45891973 #>>45893060 #>>45893320 #>>45896629 #>>45898338 #>>45902990 #>>45906281 #
dvfjsdhgfv ◴[] No.45893060[source]
> "Don't come to me with problems, come with solutions"

The problem is, the issue in the article is explicitly named as "CVE slop", so if the patch is of the same quality, it might require quite some work anyway.

replies(1): >>45893094 #
jeffbee ◴[] No.45893094[source]
The linked report seems to me to be the furthest thing from "slop". It is an S-tier bug report that includes a complete narrative, crash artifacts, and detailed repro instructions. I can't believe anyone is complaining about what is tied for the best bug report I have ever seen. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/440183164?pli=1
replies(1): >>45893528 #
michaelt ◴[] No.45893528[source]
It's a good quality bug report.

But it's also a bug report about the decoder for "SANM ANIM v0" - a format so obscure almost all the search results are the bug report itself. Possibly a format exclusive to mid-1990s LucasArts games [1]

Pretty crazy that ffmpeg supports the codec in the first place, IMHO.

I can understand volunteers not wanting to sink time into maintaining a codec to play a video format that hasn't been used since the Clinton administration. gstreamer divides their plugins into 'good', 'bad' and 'ugly' to give them somewhere to stash unmaintained codecs.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250419105551/https://wiki.mult...

replies(5): >>45893611 #>>45893616 #>>45895592 #>>45895955 #>>45896300 #
jsnell ◴[] No.45893611[source]
It's a codec that is enabled by default at least on major Linux distributions, and that will be processed by ffmpeg without any extra flags. Anyone playing an untrusted video file without explictly overriding the codec autodetection is vulnerable.

The format being obscure and having no real usage doesn't help when it's the attackers creating the files. The obscure formats are exposing just as much attack surface as the common ones.

> Pretty crazy that ffmpeg supports the codec in the first place, IMHO.

Yes.

replies(3): >>45894446 #>>45894851 #>>45895412 #
renhanxue ◴[] No.45895412[source]
There are dozens if not hundreds of issues just like this one in ffmpeg, except for codecs that are infinitely more common. Google has been running all sorts of fuzzers against ffmpeg for over a decade at this point and it just never ends. It's a 20 year old C project maintained by poorly funded volunteers that mostly gives every media file ever the be-liberal-in-what-you-accept treatment, because people complain if it doesn't decode some bizarrely non-standard MPEG4 variant recorded with some Chinese plastic toy from 2008. Of course it has all of the out-of-bounds bugs. I poked around on the issue tracker for like 5 minutes and found several "high impact" issues similar to the one in TFA just from the last two or three months, including at least one that hasn't passed the 90 day disclosure window yet.

Nobody who takes security even remotely seriously should decode untrusted media files outside of a sandboxed environment. Modern media formats are in themselves so complex one starts wondering if they're actually Turing complete, and in ffmpeg the attack surface is effectively infinitely large.

The issue is CVE slop because it just doesn't matter if you consider the big picture.

Some example issues to illustrate my point:

https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/436511754 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/445394503 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/436510316 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/433502298

replies(3): >>45895567 #>>45896399 #>>45901926 #
1. jsnell ◴[] No.45895567[source]
I don't get why you think linking to multiple legitimate and high quality bug reports with detailed analysis and precise reproduction instructions demonstrates "slop". It is the opposite.

This is software that is directly or indirectly run by millions of people on untrusted media files without sandboxing. It's not even that they don't care about security, it's that they're unaware that they should care. It should go without saying that they don't deserve to be hacked just because of that. Big companies doing tons of engineering work to add defense in depth for use cases on their own infrastructure (via sandboxing or disabling obsolete codecs) doesn't help those users. Finding and fixing the vulnerabilities does.

replies(1): >>45895644 #
2. renhanxue ◴[] No.45895644[source]
All of these reports are effectively autogenerated by Big Sleep from fuzzing.

Again, Google has been doing this sort of thing for over a decade and has found untold thousands of vulnerabilities like this one. It is not at all clear to me that their doing so has been all that valuable.

replies(2): >>45895765 #>>45898284 #
3. saagarjha ◴[] No.45895765[source]
Google fuzzing open source projects has eliminated a lot of low hanging fruit from being exploited. I am surprised you think that finding these vulnerabilities so they can be fixed has not been valuable.
4. surajrmal ◴[] No.45898284[source]
AI found the bug, but the analysis and bug report were entirely written by a human without AI assistance. Source: I work with the author.