Hi Julian, On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:02:39 +0100, you wrote: > Hello tbudl, > > Following the discussion earlier this week about whether .jpg files > could carry a viral payload, the following article has appeared! > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/25718.html
Interesting... now I'm going to have to track down Sub7 again, just to try it out. Using Sub7 as an example, technically it doesn't 'infect' the jpg file, it puts an executable wrapper around the file, leaving the extension as is... when windows goes to open the file using your default image viewer, the wrapper forces windows to run a shellexecute, then run the infected code. I cannot remember if it then opens the original image or not... So technically we could both be right... .jpg's as themselves cannot be executed, but .jpg files can be infected, and a wrapper placed around them ;) I'm always willing to stand corrected though :) -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
