> An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted packet to an affected service over the network. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute code on the target system. No authentication or user interaction is required.
It's bizarre that you're doubling down in the face of statements from Microsoft's security experts who have the full context of the investigation and the source code. It's worth some self-reflection on what drove you to make this post.
The boilerplate FAQ text is frequently wrong or incomplete. You can go through the catalog and look through some of them and see how many have multiple revisions. I think, if you want to know definitively, you have to patch diff it
It says that "no user interaction is required", so phishing is explicitly not what this vulnerability is about.
You haven't declared any privileged knowledge of this attack or MS Paint and have, on vibes, doubled down on what you assume must be going on despite other evidence.
[–] hoppp 2 days ago
[–] Arainach 2 days ago
> An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted packet to an affected service over the network. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute code on the target system. No authentication or user interaction is required.
[1] https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-20...
[–] hoppp 1 day ago
[–] Arainach 1 day ago
[–] decidu0us9034 1 day ago
[–] hoppp 1 day ago
Maybe you should self-reflect on why you are offended by my comment. You might learn something about yourself.
[–] Arainach 1 day ago
You haven't declared any privileged knowledge of this attack or MS Paint and have, on vibes, doubled down on what you assume must be going on despite other evidence.
It's a bad look.
[–] hoppp 1 day ago
You don't have to comment on other people's comments you know.
Phishing with .bmp files existed for a very long time now.