Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Still Ignores Elcomsoft-Discovered Holes
evenprime writes "In 2001, Dmitry Sklyarov
described vulnerabilities in Adobe
Acrobat and Adobe Acrobat Reader while
giving a talk at
Defcon 9.
As has
been
previously
mentioned, Dmitry was arrested the day after this talk. He and his company Elcomsoft were charged with violating the DMCA. Now Elcomsoft have announced that
Adobe, two years later,
has still not patched these bugs."
[...]may we ask who found those bugs again?
Foolish PC users! Us Macintosh people will be entirely unaffected by these exploits... ...because Adobe is starting to stop making programs for mac... :(
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
... of sweeping the bugs under the rug and ignoring that they exist while punishing the kid for pointing out the bugs.
When those bugs crawl out from under the rug... that's when you start feeling the pinch... quite literally... coz they're nasty bugs that bite.
...if that isn't a new way of fixing bugs.
Sueing the people until they stop caring and reporting them (the bugs).
That amazon guy probably has already patented it.
I believe that would be:
brickwall@adobe.com
I once asked my boss why our company has to raise so many lawsuits each year. He told me under the influerence of a couple of beers that if we don't keep our lawyers busy they'd find something to sue us.
"They're like guarddogs" after more beers "if you don't feed them well they might bite you one day"
I know this is an unfair comparison. Accept my apology to all the faithful employees...I meant to those guarddogs.
Yeah, those fucking fascist pigs at Adobe would never think to include a menu option like "View -> Continuous - Facing" in Acrobat Reader to view facing pages alongside each other, would they.
Fight the power, man!
Adobe takes people who report bugs to the fuckin' COURT!
What do you think they'll do with people who insult them?
I think this must be the official reply from the Adobe spokesperson.
"It usualy starts with some screaming. Afterwards there is much running around."
Shhh ! The name was cyphered by a new Adobe scheme !
[monty python reference]
DIMITRI: If you will not fix rot13 encryption, we shall publish an exploit!
ADOBE LAWYER: You don't frighten us, Russian pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Dimitri Hacker, you and all your silly Russian k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt!Thppt!
SLASHDOT: What a strange company.
DIMITRI: Now look here, my good man--
ADOBE LAWYER: I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
SLASHDOT: Is there someone else up there he could talk to?
ADOBE LAWYER: No, now go away or I shall sue you a second time-a!
ADOBE EMPLOYEE #1: I didn't know we were Idiots?
ADOBE EMPLOYEE #2: Of course, why else do you think we are protecting this ridiculous algorithm?
[/monty python reference]
If future commercial software relies on the law for its security rather than actual software security, this may be a good thing for open source. When that happens, we really can then say that OSS is truly more secure.
Well, you COULD say that, but then you'd be violating the DMCA, and they'd have to put you away.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Adobe's response to the bug includes this gem:
Exploits of this vulnerability violate the End User License Agreement included with Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Acrobat Reader.
They say this as if it actually matters!
Thank God they only do media-like applications. Imagine what would happen if they were responsible for system-level applications or the operating system. A company that drags its feet to this degree in patching security holes could really be a problem. I just can't imagine what that would be like. Can you?
I had a sucky sig.
can they be charged under the PATRIOT Act?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.