0.3.8 Security Issue
#21

It mustn't be RAT,it could be ANYTHING,!!
Reply
#22

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksicnm
Посмотреть сообщение
ITS A REASON CUZ THERE IS NO LINUX VERSION OMFG -_-

0.3.8 will certainly not be for a longer period of time on Linux because it is possible to insert a RAT virus into a file and destroy someone who enters the server, so the current version of Windows is currently running and who can run over it server players can enter that server if they believe in it server, the update is well done, I have been planning to let this be among many others in order to improve the launcher for models, it would be nice if this would be released to the end, along with all the vehicles and other things (antique type and so )

Quoted from Balcan forum.
Aren't you serius, really?
Reply
#23

Learn programing, thx
Reply
#24

Calm it down.
IF then you're only able to drop non-dff files, SA-MP itself doesn't treat it as a executable.

Like I said the only apparent way would be some sort of exploit in the file format itself to execute arbitrary code like we had on the TD system back then.
Reply
#25

Scared to death, omg what me gon do
Reply
#26

That's not how any of this works!

A file downloaded by the game is passed to GTA's DFF file parser. If the file is an executable, it is not just randomly run, instead the game will still try and interpret it as a model, and probably fail. Think of it this way - if you download an EXE, then try and open that file from notepad, it doesn't RUN the file, just shows you the contents. Or an even better example is a BAT file - which you can happily read from inside notepad without ever executing it.

BAT, RAT, EXE, it doesn't matter; they won't be run, because they are never told to run. Instead, they are loaded as models.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as the warning Kalcor gave about models themselves with embedded issues. GTA was originally a single-player game with no modding. This meant that all the files it was ever intended to load were the models provided with the game. Therefore certain checks could possibly be skipped, because it was known that all the objects were always valid. Without those checks in place, a well crafted model could MAYBE inject code. However, I say again, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS JUST RENAMING AN EXE. To the best of my knowledge, there are no known DFF exploits, but I've also not followed the modelling side of things very closely for a few years now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misomir
Посмотреть сообщение
It will open file and when SAMP realize thats not required file it will crash.But,the file is opened which executes program(in theory)
No, not in any theory at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyU
Посмотреть сообщение
Reading the file != parsing & loading a PE.
^ This is correct.

If you are STILL worried then a) you're an idiot (unless you've truly found an exploit in the DFF file parser itself) and b) test it with a non-destructive batch script, maybe one that just touches a file.
Reply
#27

Hmm...maybe ur right...But still i wanna test it
Reply
#28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Y_Less
Посмотреть сообщение
Therefore certain checks could possibly be skipped, because it was known that all the objects were always valid. Without those checks in place, a well crafted model could MAYBE inject code.
I remember a bug in MTA custom models parser.
However, all .txd and .dff files are renamed when downloaded, so isn't a problem at all. Maybe RCE could exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksicnm
Посмотреть сообщение
Learn programing, thx
Oh man, really? Stop saying st**ids things please.
Reply
#29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misomir
Посмотреть сообщение
Hmm...maybe ur right...But still i wanna test it
What's up with this now, since Y_Less replied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksicnm
Посмотреть сообщение
Learn programing, thx
Reply
#30

I still believe in MY theory cuz i think SAMP is opening em comlete but maybe it isnt.
Reply
#31

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowARG
Посмотреть сообщение
I remember a bug in MTA custom models parser.
A bug in a parser is not the same thing as just executing an EXE wholesale. I've even heard of bugs in the parser for reading .DOC files in Word - that doesn't make them EXEs, and trying to open an EXE in word won't execute it.
Reply
#32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Y_Less
Посмотреть сообщение
A bug in a parser is not the same thing as just executing an EXE wholesale. I've even heard of bugs in the parser for reading .DOC files in Word - that doesn't make them EXEs, and trying to open an EXE in word won't execute it.
Just read. I'm not saying this, i agree with you in all of my comments...

I said that i remember a bug in the parser that leads to RCE.

Regards.
Reply
#33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Y_Less
Посмотреть сообщение
That's not how any of this works!

A file downloaded by the game is passed to GTA's DFF file parser. If the file is an executable, it is not just randomly run, instead the game will still try and interpret it as a model, and probably fail. Think of it this way - if you download an EXE, then try and open that file from notepad, it doesn't RUN the file, just shows you the contents. Or an even better example is a BAT file - which you can happily read from inside notepad without ever executing it.

BAT, RAT, EXE, it doesn't matter; they won't be run, because they are never told to run. Instead, they are loaded as models.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as the warning Kalcor gave about models themselves with embedded issues. GTA was originally a single-player game with no modding. This meant that all the files it was ever intended to load were the models provided with the game. Therefore certain checks could possibly be skipped, because it was known that all the objects were always valid. Without those checks in place, a well crafted model could MAYBE inject code. However, I say again, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS JUST RENAMING AN EXE. To the best of my knowledge, there are no known DFF exploits, but I've also not followed the modelling side of things very closely for a few years now.



No, not in any theory at all.



^ This is correct.

If you are STILL worried then a) you're an idiot (unless you've truly found an exploit in the DFF file parser itself) and b) test it with a non-destructive batch script, maybe one that just touches a file.
Finnaly, thx man I did not read that with parsing only
Reply
#34

Wondering why is this not locked yet, by the way, the executable will not be renamed to its first extension, if you guys know how to rename it client-sidely, then it will be harmful; else whole of this topic is pointless.
Reply
#35

I just wonder if its autorun, will it download it?
Reply
#36

I think the RC1 release post was extremely clear on this issue.

Although there are several new security features related to custom models, these are not yet enabled in the current build. Only use the RC version with people you trust as there could be unknown security flaws in GTA:SA's model formats.

We're at 0.3.8 RC1. This has only been released for private testing. Once we get to RC8 all the formats will be completely locked down.

Even as it stands in RC1, loading dff and txd through SA-MP is safer than downloading a dff/txd from a modding website and running it in your game. At least R*'s collision plugin is disabled in SA-MP.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)