Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Try this with XP (all patched)

HTML
BODY
IMG SRC="./sweetydead.jpg" width="9999999" height="9999999"
/BODY
/HTML

The image does not need to be that large, a very small one is
sufficient Just the /declaration/ of the size is enough to trigger
the bug

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD



Total lie.

I'm sitting here looking at that link
http://telon.dynalias.net/crashxp/crashxp.html in IE 6. In fact, I opened
up 5 instances of it in IE and 5 instances of it in Firefox, all at once.
And not a thing happened: no system slowdown, no excessive CPU usage,
nothing.

Windows Server 2003, 1gig RAM, ATI 9600 video card

Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of Windows
running some display drivers can't handle some large images" you *might*
have been right.

But what else to expect from you but a lie.

Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of Windows
running some display drivers can't handle some large images" you *might*
have been right.

Then you didn't have a Linux install that used the faulty driver. Just
like my XP install doesn't have a video driver that crashes with this
rogue image.

O, boo-hoo-hoo....

Bottom line: if an OS can't deal with incorrectly
written application software or drivers -- then it's not very good.

Peter Köhlmann poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Try this with XP (all patched)

HTML
BODY
IMG SRC="./sweetydead.jpg" width="9999999" height="9999999"
/BODY
/HTML

The image does not need to be that large, a very small one is sufficient
Just the /declaration/ of the size is enough to trigger the bug

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD

Does it matter which browser you use on XP?

DFS wrote:

Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of
Windows running some display drivers can't handle some large images"
you *might* have been right.

How about if he said a standard Intel controller from a major
distributor, Gateway?

O, boo-hoo-hoo....

No need to cry Johnny boy. Mommy's coming with her bottle for you.


Bottom line: if an OS can't deal with incorrectly
written application software or drivers -- then it's not very good.

Open mouth. Insert foot. How's that crow taste?

jabailo@texeme.com wrote:

DFS wrote:


Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of
Windows running some display drivers can't handle some large images"
you *might* have been right.

How about if he said a standard Intel controller from a major
distributor, Gateway?


He'd be wrong.

lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

O, boo-hoo-hoo....

No need to cry Johnny boy. Mommy's coming with her bottle for you.



Bottom line: if an OS can't deal with incorrectly
written application software or drivers -- then it's not very good.

Open mouth. Insert foot. How's that crow taste?


It all tastes the same to him - he's been eating it for years.

Most likely a driver problem.

Probably. But that's not the issue.
The issue, like the cola nut said, is
"if an OS can't deal with incorrectly
written application software or
drivers -- then it's not very good."

A good cola bozo never, ever lets the
truth get in the way of a lie or insult
about Windows.

DFS wrote:
jabailo@texeme.com wrote:

DFS wrote:


Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of
Windows running some display drivers can't handle some large
images" you *might* have been right.

How about if he said a standard Intel controller from a major
distributor, Gateway?


He'd be wrong.


No he'd be me.

Because that's my experience.

Most likely a driver problem.


Probably. But that's not the issue.
The issue, like the cola nut said, is
"if an OS can't deal with incorrectly
written application software or
drivers -- then it's not very good."


A good cola bozo never, ever lets the
truth get in the way of a lie or insult
about Windows.


The problem is that the cola nut who said this is clueless as to how
computers work. Instead of learning something morons such as this guy
continue spewing their nonsense. Check out the other thread (the
meagre living of Linux virus writers) where another resident nut
posts that:


"Microsoft will actually attempt to sue anyone who publishes a CERT
alert without their permission"

and

"Often, Microsoft couples security fixes that respond to cert alerts
with trojans that will disrupt the function of other third party
software."


These people are either mentally unstable and suffer from paranoid
delusions or outright liars.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:17:32 -0600,
ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:35:21 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:


Try this with XP (all patched)

HTML
BODY
IMG SRC="./sweetydead.jpg" width="9999999" height="9999999"
/BODY
/HTML

The image does not need to be that large, a very small one is sufficient
Just the /declaration/ of the size is enough to trigger the bug

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD

That seems to be a rather pathological example - I see little real
practical implication.



if the bug is limited to that one expression, you might be correct. But
consider the underlying cause.

What seems to be happening (to me, and I am no programmer, so take this
with a grain of salt) is that MS-Windows is allocating memory, based on
how big the image is claimed to be, without actually checking it, or
checking how much memory it *should* allocate, given any other
constraints (low memory system, whatever)

What this says to me, is that the VM subsystem dropped the ball on
sanity checks, and either goes nuts trying to swap out enough stuff to
fill the malloc (or equiv) request, or wraps around and writes crap out
of bounds.


How likely is it that this bug can be triggered in some other way?

dunno, but it's something to consider.

Meanwhile, the idea of the OS, being brought down by some poor html is
amusing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqI6Dd90bcYOAWPYRArV8AJ4ihepC+lxAlWcXlEU3fm38QZ2xgQCgrZqL
iib6avs9VS5L4dAqm9o6kts=
=52RW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Linønut poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:


http://telon.dynalias.net/crashxp/crashxp.html

Mine is IE/SP2 on XP Pro. I'm viewing this page now. No crash, yet.
However, the whole computer is extremely unresponsive. Essentially
unusable. Ah, Task Manager finally came up. IE still won't respond to
user events. CPU usage is at 96%, then 2%, swinging wildly. Now the
mouse is frozen again. Ah, Ctrl-Alt-Del finally responded, now the
restart sequence is engaged. It's been going for a couple minutes now,
slowly ending apps one at a time. Finally, the boot screen.


On Linux (Firefox), no affect whatsoever.

Try this with XP (all patched)

HTML
BODY
IMG SRC="./sweetydead.jpg" width="9999999" height="9999999"
/BODY
/HTML

The image does not need to be that large, a very small one is
sufficient Just the declaration of the size is enough to trigger the
bug

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD