Technobuddy

By paulfromatlanta

November 1, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Bill, you should help the AJC with their video - I do outsourced IT and there are many, many people here in Atlanta who can watch videos on all the major sites but not on AJC.

By JD

November 1, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

It’s only a matter of time before viruses get into everything….oh wait they already are!!

By Gary

November 1, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

As someone who develops on the Internet, this isn’t a real problem for most codecs. Primarily these virus writers prey on Windows Media and FLV (Flash Movie) files because of the wrappers and plugins that are required to play them, not to mention the immense popularity of these formats. The problems is that they’re more or less totally insecure due to their implementations.

In short: Streaming video (WMV and FLV) is what’s affected; standalone videos (DIVX, Quicktime) are generally not — as long as you download the codecs from their homepages rather than third-party sites.

(Note: Quicktime may require a plugin to stream, but as it’s got an exceedingly low market share amongst video sharing sites other than trailers.apple.com, thus it’s not an emphasized target.)

By Gary

November 1, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Just one additional clarification. Standalone WMV files are every bit as capable of taking on a virus as their streaming counterparts (FLV isn’t popular as a standalone format yet).

That said, Windows Media is ground zero for probably 80% of all successful virus writing attempts in video. FLV is the up-and-coming haven of virus writers in the future (again, due to its popularity as a streaming format at YouTube).

By Gary

November 1, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Ok, just one more. ;)

The reason WMV is so exploitable is because of its extensive integration into the operating system’s core. Therefore, executing attacks is just that much easier because all a virus writer has to do is execute code in the WM application at runtime when the WMV is loaded.

That’s one reason why such tight OS integration is generally considered a “bad idea.”

By PatrckB

November 2, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

This “news” article from the BBC is just MOS (more of the same). I’m glad that they credited the source as a previously unknown anti-virus firm. It’s like having an fire alarm salesman over to your house to do a “free” evaluation. It’s all a sales pitch that uses a very-high FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, doubt). By they time they get through explaining how dangerous it is to live in the world one is left wondering how we have even survivied without their products. I see this article as the same.

Yes, it is risky behavoir to install ANYTHING whos source you are not sure of. The last time I needed a different codec, the system asked me if I wanted to install it. Online computer rule #1 - don’t install anything from a web site unless you are VERY SURE you know what it is and who it’s from. Just don’t do it.

Like you, I’m also in the AARP-elegible age bracket. I discovered youtube.com a couple of months ago and am now battling youtube-addiction. There are some very funny videos online. My favorite is the Extreme Diet Coke and Mentos Experiment. I have watched many, many videos on youtube and not one of them needed any other codec than the standard ones that come with MS-Windows.

I see this BBC news article as a new anti-virus firm trying to get free press by “crying wolf” about a supposedly new threat. It’s nothing new except a new anti-virus company after publicity.