🚀 go-pugleaf

No you don't get viruses in MP3's how ever.
 there are many viruses that like to duplicate them selfs using a
MP3 file name on your system with a second extention that you normally do not
see in your explorer, somthing like NamofSong.mp3.exe
 you won't see the .exe at the end but a hidden copy of the original is still
there
and what happens is the virus gets started then shell starts the real mp3
after.


0BIT wrote:

> I've been told that it is possible to have a virus within a MP3 file.
> But I don't believe this, because there is no code in a MP3, am I right ?
> I have seen mp3 files to start up an internet link, or you need to pay for
> these files.
> I know you have virusses in word documents, but that is because a macro is
> created in it ?!
> And ofcourse you can have virusses in .exe and .dll files...
>
> Or am I wrong about this ?
> Has anybody seen a virus within a mp3 file ?
>
> Greetings,
> 0BIT

0BIT wrote:

> Or am I wrong about this ?
> Has anybody seen a virus within a mp3 file ?

The MP3 format cannot have code inside.
But... WMF (Windows Media) file format can! (It can for instance start 
IE and load webpages)
Renaming a WMF into MP3 is pretty easy, the player will not give you an 
error so you will never know that what you are playing is a WMF and 
_NOT_ a MP3.

Bye,
   Luca

"0BIT" <someone@123.com> wrote in message
news:Kmxra.241720$ZG5.22396267@amsnews02.chello.com...
> I've been told that it is possible to have a virus within a MP3 file.
> But I don't believe this, because there is no code in a MP3, am I right ?
> I have seen mp3 files to start up an internet link, or you need to pay for
> these files.
> I know you have virusses in word documents, but that is because a macro is
> created in it ?!
> And ofcourse you can have virusses in .exe and .dll files...
>
> Or am I wrong about this ?
> Has anybody seen a virus within a mp3 file ?

There has been one incident when someone exploited a bug in a certain (Beta)
player for Linux using a buffer underrun, to run their own code. But apart
from that, no. Viruses do not exist in MP3s.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

Excuse me but, even showing extentions will not show multiple extentions
depending
on Explorer versions/
 ???.mp3.exe usually shows with ????.mp3 even with extentions on.


Quivis wrote:

> In article <3EAEA9E6.BD98BDD@mindspring.com>, UseThis.jamie12
> @mindspring.com says...
>
> [...]
> -> see in your explorer, somthing like NamofSong.mp3.exe
> [...]
>
> And that's why it's always best to turn that crappy stuff off in
> Explorer. Have it always show extensions. Then again, it doesn't hurt
> to have up-to-date virus lists either... ;-)
>
> Q.

With what version of windows? I don't observe that in 98, 98se or ME.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

"Maynard Philbrook" <UseThis.jamie12@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3EAF4EF0.8F47BCB8@mindspring.com...
> Excuse me but, even showing extentions will not show multiple extentions
> depending
> on Explorer versions/
>  ???.mp3.exe usually shows with ????.mp3 even with extentions on.
>
>
> Quivis wrote:
>
> > In article <3EAEA9E6.BD98BDD@mindspring.com>, UseThis.jamie12
> > @mindspring.com says...
> >
> > [...]
> > -> see in your explorer, somthing like NamofSong.mp3.exe
> > [...]
> >
> > And that's why it's always best to turn that crappy stuff off in
> > Explorer. Have it always show extensions. Then again, it doesn't hurt
> > to have up-to-date virus lists either... ;-)
> >
> > Q.
>

Any File can store virus code..
But is depend on what runs
that code..

If MP3 player is able to execute
then the virus can run.

But for now!, fortunately the mp3
data is just readed decoded and
transformed into wind :)




"0BIT" <someone@123.com> je napisal v sporo�ilo
news:Kmxra.241720$ZG5.22396267@amsnews02.chello.com ...
> I've been told that it is possible to have a virus within a MP3 file.
> But I don't believe this, because there is no code in a MP3, am I right ?
> I have seen mp3 files to start up an internet link, or you need to pay for
> these files.
> I know you have virusses in word documents, but that is because a macro is
> created in it ?!
> And ofcourse you can have virusses in .exe and .dll files...
>
> Or am I wrong about this ?
> Has anybody seen a virus within a mp3 file ?
>
>
>
> Greetings,
> 0BIT
>
>

I have Win XP and explorer shows all the extensions correctly
even with something.mp3.exe !

Thank you all for your responces,
0BIT

Which is easily fixed with Registry Editor... Add AlwaysShowExt, remove 
NeverShowExt. Do a Google search for complete instructions:
http://www.google.com/search?q=alwaysshowext

Regards,
IByte

Maynard Philbrook wrote:
> Excuse me but, even showing extentions will not show multiple extentions
> depending
> on Explorer versions/
>  ???.mp3.exe usually shows with ????.mp3 even with extentions on.
> 
> 
> Quivis wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <3EAEA9E6.BD98BDD@mindspring.com>, UseThis.jamie12
>>@mindspring.com says...
>>
>>[...]
>>-> see in your explorer, somthing like NamofSong.mp3.exe
>>[...]
>>
>>And that's why it's always best to turn that crappy stuff off in
>>Explorer. Have it always show extensions. Then again, it doesn't hurt
>>to have up-to-date virus lists either... ;-)
>>
>>Q.
> 
> 

well i am sorry to inform you all that it is possible to make explorer
show only the
first extention, thats using only the options given to you at the user
level to set the
explorer options.
  i have my extentions showing as most do how ever, i also have several
files
that are for example *.bmp.exe  *.jpg.exe and only show *.bmp and *.jpg
if your
using the explorer browser settings.
  so you guys that think other wise can wipe the egg off your face you
find one of
these files the hard way.
  i have observer this in 95,98, 98se , W2k and even XP with using the
the options to show extentions on via the user options at the Explorer
browser.
   so happy virus camping to you all.


0BIT wrote:

> I have Win XP and explorer shows all the extensions correctly
> even with something.mp3.exe !
>
> Thank you all for your responces,
> 0BIT

"Maynard Philbrook" <UseThis.jamie12@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3EAFE7A9.C817AD00@mindspring.com...
> 0BIT wrote:
> > I have Win XP and explorer shows all the extensions correctly
> > even with something.mp3.exe !
> >
> > Thank you all for your responces,
> > 0BIT
>
> well i am sorry to inform you all that it is possible to make explorer
> show only the
> first extention, thats using only the options given to you at the user
> level to set the
> explorer options.
>   i have my extentions showing as most do how ever, i also have several
> files
> that are for example *.bmp.exe  *.jpg.exe and only show *.bmp and *.jpg
> if your
> using the explorer browser settings.
>   so you guys that think other wise can wipe the egg off your face you
> find one of
> these files the hard way.
>   i have observer this in 95,98, 98se , W2k and even XP with using the
> the options to show extentions on via the user options at the Explorer
> browser.
>    so happy virus camping to you all.

Well, either you're trolling (in which case I'll bite) or you don't have
Explorer set up right. Try this little experiment:
(1) Open up C: or whatever drive you want
(2) Go to tools -> folder options -> view and make sure that "hide
extensions for known file types" is not checked (it is checked by default)
(3) Create a new text file called "something.bmp.exe"
(4) See what appears in your folder

I loaded up a fresh install of XP Pro (no service packs applied) into VMWare
and the file appeared as "something.bmp.exe", not "something.bmp". Also
tried this on not-fresh installs of NT4 SP5, Win2K SP1, Win95 OSR2.5 and
Win98. All appeared the same once the correct option was unchecked.

Note that you *can* call the file "something.bmp.lnk" and it will appear as
"something.bmp" with the little shortcut-icon thing on it.
--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Quivis wrote:
> In article <3EAF4EF0.8F47BCB8@mindspring.com>, UseThis.jamie12
> @mindspring.com says...
> 
> -> Excuse me but, even showing extentions will not show multiple extentions
> -> depending
> -> on Explorer versions/
> ->  ???.mp3.exe usually shows with ????.mp3 even with extentions on.
> 
> That's odd. In Win95 as well as on XP-Pro the double extension always 
> shows if you set Explorer up correctly.
> 
> 
> Q.

try filename.mp3.pif you'll see :)

"Arvind Doobary" <TAKEarvind.d@THISifrance.comOUT> wrote in message
news:b9dohc$uh3$2@news.intnet.mu...
> Quivis wrote:
> > In article <3EAF4EF0.8F47BCB8@mindspring.com>, UseThis.jamie12
> > @mindspring.com says...
> >
> > -> Excuse me but, even showing extentions will not show multiple
extentions
> > -> depending
> > -> on Explorer versions/
> > ->  ???.mp3.exe usually shows with ????.mp3 even with extentions on.
> >
> > That's odd. In Win95 as well as on XP-Pro the double extension always
> > shows if you set Explorer up correctly.
> >
> >
> > Q.
>
> try filename.mp3.pif you'll see :)

Yikes! *This* does work! (renamed notepad.exe to notepad.txt.pif). Appending
.exe or .lnk doesn't, but pif does ... this is a big worry.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

> Yikes! *This* does work! (renamed notepad.exe to notepad.txt.pif). Appending
> ..exe or .lnk doesn't, but pif does ... this is a big worry.

Hopefully, you'll be able to recognise a renamed file with the pif 
extension by its reddish MS-DOS icon with a shortcut overlay icon.

Arvind Doobary wrote:

>> Yikes! *This* does work! (renamed notepad.exe to notepad.txt.pif).
>> Appending ..exe or .lnk doesn't, but pif does ... this is a big
>> worry. 
> 
> Hopefully, you'll be able to recognise a renamed file with the pif
> extension by its reddish MS-DOS icon with a shortcut overlay icon.

Well, uhm. 

c:\>copy c:\windows\notepad.exe c:\windows\desktop\notepad.txt.pif

Doesn't give me a MS-DOS icon. 

c:\>copy c:\windows\pbrush.exe c:\windows\desktop\pbrush.bmp.pif

Does however.

-- 
www.zenobits.com

> Well, either you're trolling (in which case I'll bite) or you don't have
> Explorer set up right. Try this little experiment:
> (1) Open up C: or whatever drive you want
> (2) Go to tools -> folder options -> view and make sure that "hide
> extensions for known file types" is not checked (it is checked by default)
> (3) Create a new text file called "something.bmp.exe"
> (4) See what appears in your folder
> 
> I loaded up a fresh install of XP Pro (no service packs applied) into VMWare
> and the file appeared as "something.bmp.exe", not "something.bmp". Also
> tried this on not-fresh installs of NT4 SP5, Win2K SP1, Win95 OSR2.5 and
> Win98. All appeared the same once the correct option was unchecked.
> 
> Note that you *can* call the file "something.bmp.lnk" and it will appear as
> "something.bmp" with the little shortcut-icon thing on it.

I have WinXP PRO no service packs with the HIDE EXTS FOR KNOWN FILE
TYPES not checked! I don't agree with you about the *.*.exe but if you
try *.*.pif you will understand what those guys are talking about! You
can execute a whole program with the user thinking that they are
executing a .txt file (for example).

Chris Mantoulidis,
e-mail: cmad_x@yahoo.com

Which is precisely why I handle all my mail on a non-privileged account on 
Macintosh OS/X, or a non-privileged account on Linux.  /Never/ Windows.



Chris Mantoulidis wrote:
>> Well, either you're trolling (in which case I'll bite) or you don't have
>> Explorer set up right. Try this little experiment:
>> (1) Open up C: or whatever drive you want
>> (2) Go to tools -> folder options -> view and make sure that "hide
>> extensions for known file types" is not checked (it is checked by
>> default) (3) Create a new text file called "something.bmp.exe"
>> (4) See what appears in your folder
>> 
>> I loaded up a fresh install of XP Pro (no service packs applied) into
>> VMWare and the file appeared as "something.bmp.exe", not "something.bmp".
>> Also tried this on not-fresh installs of NT4 SP5, Win2K SP1, Win95 OSR2.5
>> and Win98. All appeared the same once the correct option was unchecked.
>> 
>> Note that you *can* call the file "something.bmp.lnk" and it will appear
>> as "something.bmp" with the little shortcut-icon thing on it.
> 
> I have WinXP PRO no service packs with the HIDE EXTS FOR KNOWN FILE
> TYPES not checked! I don't agree with you about the *.*.exe but if you
> try *.*.pif you will understand what those guys are talking about! You
> can execute a whole program with the user thinking that they are
> executing a .txt file (for example).
> 
----------------------------------
Fast automatic table repair at a click of a mouse!
http://www.sundialservices.com/products/chimneysweep

On Mon, 12 May 2003 06:46:11 -0700, Sundial Services
<info_ns5@sundialservices.com> wrote:

>Which is precisely why I handle all my mail on a non-privileged account on 
>Macintosh OS/X, or a non-privileged account on Linux.  /Never/ Windows.
>
I use an old copy of Eudora - fronted by Mailwasher

However the ratio of Spam to 'real' Email is so high, that I am
seriously thinking of trashing my current account

The ISPs should be doing something about this junk
- it is destroying one major facet of the internet

"J French" <Bounce_It_jerry@iss.u-net.com_.bin> skrev i melding
news:3ec080ec.2005707@news.u-net.com...
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 06:46:11 -0700, Sundial Services
> <info_ns5@sundialservices.com> wrote:
>
> >Which is precisely why I handle all my mail on a non-privileged account
on
> >Macintosh OS/X, or a non-privileged account on Linux.  /Never/ Windows.
> >
> I use an old copy of Eudora - fronted by Mailwasher
>
> However the ratio of Spam to 'real' Email is so high, that I am
> seriously thinking of trashing my current account
>
> The ISPs should be doing something about this junk
> - it is destroying one major facet of the internet

What I do not understand, is why there hasn't been a campaign for ISP's to
stop sending of emails with fake sender-addresses ? I wouldn't be able to
send anonymous emails through my ISP, AFAIK. If ISPs were made repsonisble
for the traffic they were relaying, wouldn't it be possible to have them
stop it ?

-- 
Regards,

Bj�rge S�ther
bjorge@haha_itte.no
-------------------------------------
I'll not spend any money on American Software products
until armed forces are out of Iraq.

On Tue, 13 May 2003 08:56:49 +0200, "Bj�rge S�ther"
<bjorge@hahaha_itte.no> wrote:

<snip>
>> The ISPs should be doing something about this junk
>> - it is destroying one major facet of the internet
>
>What I do not understand, is why there hasn't been a campaign for ISP's to
>stop sending of emails with fake sender-addresses ? I wouldn't be able to
>send anonymous emails through my ISP, AFAIK. If ISPs were made repsonisble
>for the traffic they were relaying, wouldn't it be possible to have them
>stop it ?

It gets even dafter

I have a 'Default' account that I _never_ check

According to my ISP it contains shedloads of crud
- yet they don't delete it automatically

I did hear at one time that Chinese stuff was being filtered by some
forwarders - I just wish they would go for the Korean rubbish