The “Imagegate” rumor mill goes wild

Search for “imagegate,” and you’ll find lots of articles claiming there’s a malware risk in JPEG files. Look more closely, and you’ll notice they don’t provide any support for the claim. They all take an article from Check Point as their source, but there are two little problems with that: (1) The article doesn’t blame JPEG files, and (2) as I noted in my last post, it’s inept reporting.

Looking very closely at the video which accompanies the Check Point article, I see that it shows a file called “payload.jpg” being uploaded. This must be what all these sites are going by. You have to look really close to see the blurry file name coming up, and I give these sites credit for examining it more closely than I did.

If this was Check Point’s way of tipping people off that the weakness is in JPEG, it’s a strange way to do it. Did they think that ordinary users would catch it, but malware authors would be tricked by the article’s reference to non-image formats like JS and HTA as “images”?

None of the articles I’ve seen question why Check Point tipped them off in this way or note the inconsistencies in the article and the video. None of them ask why Check Point refuses to give any information until “the major affected websites” fix the problem, when a format vulnerability impacts any software that reads the files.

Doesn’t anyone know how to do journalism any more?

Update: Facebook says that “Imagegate” is bull.

Comments are closed.