Vuln from... 1995?

[Joe]

Firefox and SP1 dies. It crashes the video driver

Signed.

[deadly7]

That's why you don't use ATI. gg

[Quik]

That's why you don't use ATI. gg

I'm on an nVidia GeForce.

[deadly7]

Well you fail.  I like how it crashes the new cards but my nVIDIA GeForce3 Titanium 200 64mb video card be unaffected.

[iago]

Firefox and SP1 dies. It crashes the video driver, trying to load stoopid.jpg that has width="9999999" height="9999999" .

The actual picture doesn't, but the .html says it does.  On the one on my page (in my signature), I'm just using a screenshot that I had handy

What are you trying to say? Please clarify that post, you sound drunk.

I read over it, and it sounds fine. 

The actual image doesn't have a size of what you said.  The image can be any size. 

The .html tag, on the other hand, resizes the image to something that Windows can't handle. 

Does it work better in smaller words?

Anyway, this is especially fun on:
- SMF forums
- MySpace

[Newby]

Don't forget IPB boards!

[Quik]

Firefox and SP1 dies. It crashes the video driver, trying to load stoopid.jpg that has width="9999999" height="9999999" .

The actual picture doesn't, but the .html says it does.  On the one on my page (in my signature), I'm just using a screenshot that I had handy

What are you trying to say? Please clarify that post, you sound drunk.

I read over it, and it sounds fine. 

The actual image doesn't have a size of what you said.  The image can be any size. 

The .html tag, on the other hand, resizes the image to something that Windows can't handle. 

Does it work better in smaller words?

Anyway, this is especially fun on:
- SMF forums
- MySpace

So the image doesn't matter (not an issue of opening it up in a hex editor and changing specific bytes like other exploits have been), but the HTML code crashing video drivers because it is trying to render too large of an image is the fault? Tell me if I'm mistaken.

[iago]

So the image doesn't matter (not an issue of opening it up in a hex editor and changing specific bytes like other exploits have been), but the HTML code crashing video drivers because it is trying to render too large of an image is the fault? Tell me if I'm mistaken.

In this case, yes.

However, because it happens on different browsers, it is probably deeper than that.  But it definitely has to do with loading an image with a huge size. 

[Newby]

So the image doesn't matter (not an issue of opening it up in a hex editor and changing specific bytes like other exploits have been), but the HTML code crashing video drivers because it is trying to render too large of an image is the fault? Tell me if I'm mistaken.

In this case, yes.

However, because it happens on different browsers, it is probably deeper than that.  But it definitely has to do with loading an image with a huge size. 

It's probably the fact that Windows attempts to resize an image to an amazingly large size, and can't do this because it sucks!

[Ergot]

Bad picture but meh...

[iago]

Oh yeah?



Much prettier

Also note that Windows' Bluescreen takes 100% cpu usage.  *wonders why*

[Screenor]

There was a similar bug to this a while back that worked on all browsers, just it involved making a .gif 9999 (literally) times it's size, it was patched pretty quickly with Firefox, though.

My favorite atm is http://aquabelic.tk/

[Sidoh]

ROFL.  That's sad.

[RoMi]

In Media Center 05 it doesn't crash.  Firefox handels it.  IE becomes unresponsive needing to be closed with ALT-F4 or ALT-CTRL-DEL.  No crashing however.

[Warrior]

in XP SP2 with Firefox 1.5 it blue screens, pre 1.5 it just restarted.