Posted by kuberwastaken 20 hours ago
We seriously need more information.
1. Telemetry as implemented is usually sloppy. Even though intuitively one could think that telemetry means “data gets collected locally and fired off to a remote server”, we have seen time and time again that they also build a return path to make the telemetry gathering more powerful. That return path can be a vector.
2. Web browsers have a _huge_ surface and they connect to remote servers constantly. The industry does very well at being proactive and at addressing CVEs but the whole premise makes that very difficult and so we cannot absolutely claim that browsers don’t have RCE(s).
What return path could possibly lead to a RCE? That's crazy, no telemetry requires "backend could return any command that gets run on the client", you're doing telemetry in a very non-standard way if this is even possible.
At worst, the telemetry backend might first send the client a config, but none of that would contain executable commands because again, that'd be crazy.
> we cannot absolutely claim that browsers don’t have RCE(s).
Of course, you can never prove the absence of bugs (and/or security issues), but given that browsers aren't wildly exploited at this very moment, nor have been for quite some time, we can pretty confidently claim there are no browser RCEs in wide use today.
It's true that browsers have pretty big attack surface, but it's also true that it's the class of software that gets the more pentesting, since the payoff would be so great when you manage to find holes.
API protocol says “return value is either “OK” or “ERR””, attacker sends “Floccinaucinihilipilification”, overflowing the 3-byte response buffer allocated on the stack.
I'm claiming if "everything else" does indeed lead to a RCE, you're again doing something very wrong here. It's not rocket science exactly.
I'd go out on a limb here perhaps, but I'd claim that if your telemetry means that the one SENDING the data gets a RCE by default by it, you're doing telemetry very wrong. Maybe look into different libraries/services than the ones you use today, please.
To stack assumptions, I'd reach for something like using the recent certificate circus to present as there being an updated version of whatever model it uses on the PCs that can run it locally to give it a fucked up model that does the out of bounds shit as part of whatever verification/checks it does after its downloaded/installed.
It's quite common with vulnerabilities found by IA, there might be less hallucination, but the impact/score is often completely wrong.
Normally have been 86-ing a number of annoying things such as OneDrive, but leaving Paint in place figuring it's got to still be harmless.
Creeping increases in attack vector when just the opposite is needed more than ever.
Then they added automatic HTML parsing of incoming emails, and the attackers cheered.
You can go back to mutt's parsing, and CVE-1999-0940 for an old example. But I'm sure that's only one of many.
Turns out paint was the thing almost every customer had installed/had access to, so he worked to the lowest common denominator and got really good at using it. I guess now he'll need to find a new tool to astonish devs with.
And at the end of the day $2 and $2000 screwdrivers are both still screwdrivers.
Like when a previously sturdy old sailing ship starts taking on water, for instance in the 18th century and beyond.
Numerical equivalent to "deep-six."
I understood that reference.
once Microsoft has reinvented themselves as…security-first?
And there is the SFI program.
However this is a Windows application, and in spite some Rust advances in WinDev, it is pretty much C and C++ turf, with Rust getting the same warm reception as .NET used to enjoy.
Guess which language is Paint written on?
Nonetheless, they are doubling down on sandboxing Windows, macOS, iOS and Android style, for quite some time, exactly to become security first as you are asking for.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/rip-microsoft-pai...
Get-AppxPackage -Name Microsoft.Paint | Select-Object Name, Version
But I can only get Microsoft.Paint 11.2609.401.0 and Microsoft has said different things in different places, so it's not even clear if this has the fix or not.
This article has more info on the confusion they're causing: https://windowsforum.com/news/cve-2026-83844-windows-11-pain...
If I still mamaged any windows host, i would be deploying a remove-package script asap to the entire fleet.
When did y'all stop using some basic sense before writing? -_-
Yeah samesame:
-Compares a kernel with paint
-Uses a program with telemetry/spyware instead of installing on of the 1000s alternatives
Oh no dont get me wrong, it's definitely not some random spyware, it's deliberately made by Microsoft targeted at Windows Users who cant buy a Enterprise License.
Now that I'm on Linux, I use jspaint.app.
I would use kolourpaint but for whatever reason overlaid GUI elements like the selection box and brush cursors leave trails on the canvas.
Fun anecdote, paint.exe crashed the other day just as I was finishing up my drawing of the tower of Babel.
Anyway, I continued using layers and transparency/opacity. Pixel art was hard enough already for me, so I didn’t feel that it made sense to artificially make it even more difficult for myself at the time. I had enough other aspects of pixel art to work out already in order to try to get better at it.
There's this https://www.windowsphoneinfo.com/threads/why-does-resizing-m... (made confusing by the next person talking about Paint 3D, a different application) and this https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/3991946/... (made confusing by the person being an artist and talking in peanut butter metaphors).
There's some suggestion there that shapes (including lines) are separate entities from pixels. Wikipedia references a now-deleted answers.microsoft.com version of the first question https://web.archive.org/web/20250203164656/https://answers.m... with a couple of people saying that resize is useless. Wiki also says "re-copied" images blur, which is why I wondered if that meant pasting. Also this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/5673783/... a complaint that the tool for drawing pixels doesn't indicate exactly which pixel it will draw to.
[^1]: https://lawsofsoftwareengineering.com/laws/zawinskis-law/
>june 2026
Pretty sure it would be May?
But in either case they had 91 releases that month?
They're not a positional notation. It's version 11.2605.91 recently. It was 11.2605.81 earlier this year. There was an 11.2605.71 and an 11.2605.61 before that. Last year, there was a 11.2504.451 . The year before there was a 11.2402.32 .
Microsoft's versioning systems are not 4 columns where a tick around of one increments the one before it. The easiest way to think of them is madness made for marketing purposes. (Windows NT starting at 3.1, for example.) There is some logic to it, but nowadays it's often four entirely different things jammed together, ticking around independently. Like the version of Windows, the year and month of the release, and perhaps a daily build number or some such.
Windows NT itself has a monotonically increasing build number as part of its versioning that started some time in 1992 and is currently just over 26 thousand.
Are you using Windows? If so, then yes.
The Microsoft link doesn't mention this at all, so my guess it's "remote" in the sense that a zip file exploit is "remote"
https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-20...
> How could an attacker exploit this vulnerability?
> 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..
This is some Eric-Cantona-level gnomic mysticism. I approve.
not sure if the last time was also a RCE specifically, but this by far isn't the first "this shouldn't even be remotely possible" CVE in MS Paint
Could also be some kind of recall feature.
IFF there is a NSA backdoor it likely would be:
- not in paint, but something you can't disable/remove in hardened special purpose windows setups
- not be easily usable by 3rd parties, like some auth accidentally accepting some quite specific other password (e.g. due to some bug reading the expected hash from the wrong place) or similar
lets not forget as much as the NSA might want to spy on you they also want to keep China/Russia out of spying on US companies. A traditional RCE in paint is very counter productive for that.
One one hand they can actively try to work with companies to get secret back doors put in, sure. But I imagine that's not usually very successful. Lavabit chose to go out of business instead of doing so... I wonder who else is out there that we don't know about.
But we also have evidence that they actively look for, buy, and hoard, unknown (to the vendor) exploits for their own possible later use in case they need it for something.
I'm sure you can imagine that it's much more advantageous to keep collecting all kinds of different ways to get into a system in case one method is not applicable for any number of reasons.
unfortunately it made some mistakes and didn't make everything secure.
im sure windows security will get better as models get better...
maybe in six months when we have AGI... . . .
> 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...