A local radio station talk show host does not believe that y

>>60925555
That's pretty relative to whatever you use to open the email.
Are you targeting a particular email client? Or a particular browser? A particular image viewer?

You're going to be exploiting something. The virus won't just run from being in the image file. It's got to be executed by something.

poor grandpa got btfo by his drinking buddy?

youre all washed up and hes got a radio gig?

what you are requesting is illegal and /g/ isnt your personal army

>he calls it a ping
awe poor baby triggered?
pathetic

>>60925584
Right, that's what I thought as well but he had a few callers who thought they could pull it off so I gave /g/ the opprtunity.

>>60925584

Photoshop still uses .raw, maybe something can come out of it. Radio guy would need to have photoshop, though.

>>60925970
Yeah, but you're still exploiting something, Photoshop in this case.
The chance of him opening it in Photoshop is low unless you get him to, at which point it is kinda defeating the purpose.

>>60925555
>pls hack 4 me!
NYPA

>>60925555
please leave

>>60925555
Using .png as an attack vector is infeasible because in all likelihood all known png image parsing libraries and software exploits have been patched.

Recent attacks using png are a bit more involved than just opening the png image.

Here is an example where the binary payload is delivered through png but also requires a launcher which the user has to execute.
https://securelist.com/png-embedded-malicious-payload-hidden-in-a-png-file/74297/

>>60926283
in short, png can be used as a payload container, but you need to use the hacked parser. The malicious png file only serves to obfuscate the malware for analysis and antivirus software analysis.

In simpleton speak: Unless there are png zeroday exploits in common image parsing libraries, which is unlikely. A png image cannot infect you unless you run it with a hacked launcher, but then you're running an unknown binary anyways so wtf are you doing?