Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PDF Tracking On the Way

Posted by timothy on from the drown-baby-in-the-bathwater dept.

(el)Capitan.Nick writes "PDFzone reports that the company Remote Approach has launched a service to track the movement of PDF documents with its tool Map-Bot. The purpose of this service is to allow PDF publishers the ability to measure their audience, as web publishers can already. Though personal information is not gathered from machines, IP addresses are. PDFs can require users to be connected to the Internet in order to read them, and every person you email the PDF to is subject to the service. As PDFzone's opinion article states, while 'the chances of running into a Remote Approach PDF right now -- and in the near future -- are pretty remote ... the potential for the technology to tarnish PDF's image [of security] is staggering.'"

52 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Advertisements! by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh.. soon as they can track views of PDFs, people will start putting ads in them... I guarentee it!

    I can see it now.. Google introduces AdWords for PDFs...

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  2. Simple... by Rolan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simple... Refuse to read PDFs that require the technology. Publishers won't get any data from it, and given a loud enough voice, will find that the tool reduces their distribution. It does them no good if the users won't read their documents because of it.

    --
    - AMW
    1. Re:Simple... by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      >It's simple... Refuse to read PDFs that require the technology.

      You'd have trouble convincing more than about 2% of users to refuse.

      >Publishers won't get any data from it

      Sure they will. You will be the one getting no data because you're holding out when no one else cares.

      It's a wonderful idea, but it simply won't happen without government intervention...and who wants that?

    2. Re:Simple... by stygianguest · · Score: 2, Funny

      This seems a bit similar to the massive boycot of crappy microsoft software we have now. We know from this that people really care about the quality of the products they are using.

      In reality people wouldn't even think a second before opening a pdf that includes some tracking software, all they care about it reading the contents, doube click and there you go. The only thing that stop this is a message that damages the image of pdf i.e. the big media labeling pdf as spyware, which it seems to become if this is implemented.

      The only thing I don't get is that they need extra technology to do this. Can't they just check who's downloaded a file how many times? Or are they worried they'll miss the countless copies passed on by floppy?

    3. Re:Simple... by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's simple... Refuse to read PDFs that require the technology.

      Better than that, refuse to use pdf viewers that implement this "feature". (Does anyone know which those are? Without knowing, I would assume Adobe acrobat reader probably does and xpdf probably does not. Does anyone have more specific/accurate information?)

    4. Re:Simple... by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt what you say is true. PDF I would imagine are used a lot more by the business community than the general public. IN any event the format is in heavy use in the business community.

      I don't see the business community accepting applications phoning home when they see fit. My company wouldn't. Would IBM, Sun, Motorola, Toyota? Doubtful.

    5. Re:Simple... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >It's simple... Refuse to read PDFs that require the technology.
      You'd have trouble convincing more than about 2% of users to refuse.

      No, simply block out connection to the tracking protocol. If Personal Internet firewalls were not so dufus designed they would make it easy to say 'this program has no business connecting to the Internet, silently disable all connection attempts without notice'.

      IE has the same bug in the active X scheme. There should be an option that allows downloading of active-x components to be refused unless they come from a small number of trusted sources. today the choice is disable activex entirely or allow sites to pester with 20 or more demands to install spyware.

      This adobe crap is spyware BTW

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:Simple... by cortana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure you can adjust your security policy to disallow untrusted activex downloads, along with a lot of other crap.

    7. Re:Simple... by SeanAhern · · Score: 2, Informative

      [S]imply block out connection to the tracking protocol. If Personal Internet firewalls were not so dufus designed they would make it easy to say 'this program has no business connecting to the Internet, silently disable all connection attempts without notice'.

      The point was that the PDF would not be displayed if the tracking server could not be contacted. If you blocked the outgoing connection, you now have a useless PDF.

      Or did I misread something in your argument...

  3. As much as it pains me to say this... by ral315 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is it any different from collecting the I.P. of everyone who visits your website?

    1. Re:As much as it pains me to say this... by akzeac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Websites only collect the IP of the machine that downloaded the page. This technology would distributors to collect the IP of every machine in which the PDF is *viewed*.

      On the evil side, getting on the conspiration mood, it would also allow the FBI or the gov to diffund pseudo-dissident bait documents and then check and track anyone who reads it, anywhere he reads it.

    2. Re:As much as it pains me to say this... by markandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the difference is that for a website to know your IP, you have to explicitly and wilfully visit the site, in the knowledge that your visit will be logged.

      with this technology, you're not wilfully visiting anything - the document is on your own machine (or network) and unless there's a popup box giving you the information (which the article implies there won't be), you've no way of knowing that your IP is about to be transmitted.

      essentially, for a website, you're a willing client asking for a service to be delivered back to your address from a remote point. the simple act of asking for information to be sent to you is an implicit acknowledgement that your IP is available to the server for its own use. for -this- technology, you'd be an unwilling server sending out information without your knowledge to an, effectively, unknown client. that seems like a big difference to me.

    3. Re:As much as it pains me to say this... by Copperhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, it was Big Brother who wrote Emmanuel Goldstein's "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism".

      --
      Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
  4. Okay.... by Balthisar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay... Print, Save as PDF on the Mac, or Print, select PDF Writer on Windows, or print to ps and "distill" with gs on anything else, and there goes the tracking. Not right?

    --
    --Jim (me)
    1. Re:Okay.... by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct me if I am wrong but, I believe that these features rely on the reader for enforcement. That means that readers such as Ghost Script can ignore the "feature". This makes them non-trackable, printable and copyable, no?

    2. Re:Okay.... by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or more likely: ghostscript just can't read encrypted PDFs.

      And when you can successfully read it, the same goes for some other special features/text formatting, maybe... you just lose them in the conversion

      The technology kind of defeats the value of PDF, IMO. Because, you see, if you have to be on the Internet to read the PDF, and you can't read offline at your leisure on whatever device that is available then it's not really a Portable document, now, is it?

    3. Re:Okay.... by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ghostscript can read encrypted PDF's, however it does honor the creator settings for disabled features, you will have to go in and recompile it with whatever function checking if it is set to disable features to always return no features disabled.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  5. A Day Late by Copperhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    It's April 2nd already! Stop with the unbelievable stories...

    Oh, wait...

    --
    Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
  6. Mmm.. sounds like PDFs are ripe for 'sploiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me see.. how about a DoS attack.. spam a PDF to a bunch of people and have the PDF phone home to a site you wish to attack. Or... can we run arbitrary code from PDFs?

  7. Disable PDF Javascript by user9918277462 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The remote logging is done through embedded Javascript in the PDF file. Most free viewers such as gpdf, xpdf and kpdf don't support Javascript so you're safe with them.

    Adobe Acrobat Reader starting supporting embedded Javascript with version 7.0, although you can disable it in the preferences dialog. Apparently it bugs you every time you start the program to re-enable it, though.

    Bottom line: Stick with free software.

    1. Re:Disable PDF Javascript by mr_shifty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently it bugs you every time you start the program to re-enable it, though.

      It was that stupid nag-message that caused me to uninstall Adobe Reader 7 and reinstall Adobe Reader 6 on my Windows machines.

      I would pop up the "This document contains Javascripts. Do you want to enable Javascripts from now on? The document may not behave correctly if they're disabled." message even on PDFs that I created that I know don't have Javascripts in them.

      Feh.

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    2. Re:Disable PDF Javascript by Laxori666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I myself use acrobat reader 4.0 . It loads about 1000x faster than 6 or 7 which are huge and bloated. I haven't had any trouble viewing pdfs yet.

  8. Discussed on LWN concerning Adobe Acrobat 7 by nick_urbanik · · Score: 5, Informative
    • Article is subscribers only (worthwhile)
    • Article will be readable by guests 1 week after publishing
    • Solution in Linux is to disable Javascript in acroread 7
    1. Re:Discussed on LWN concerning Adobe Acrobat 7 by Isthistakenyet? · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a bug (in my opinion) in Acrobat Reader 7 when you disable JavaScript that causes this warning to appear when exiting the program:

      This document contains JavaScripts. Do you want to enable JavaScripts from now on? This document may not behave correctly if they're disabled.

      This happens even if you do not have a document loaded, since Adobe Reader tries to run some internal JavaScripts when it exits. If JavaScript is disabled, this warning comes up. I've created patches that prevent this from happening on both Linux and Windows. They may also prevent the warning from coming up with documents that actually contain JavaScript.

  9. Re:PDF by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    IIRC, it's "Portable Document Format".

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  10. Sure, that works by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's simple... Refuse to read PDFs that require the technology.

    Just like I can shop elsewhere if I don't like being captured on a store's video surveillance camera. Except that they ALL have cameras. If there's no true alternative, you're screwed. Am I going to forego opening that online manual that I desperately need to troubleshoot a problem? I don't think so. A better solution is for some enterprising hackers to find a way to break this technology.

    1. Re:Sure, that works by frazzydee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you...which is why it's so important that we boycott these PDFs NOW, so it's stopped in its tracks. If people had generally decided that surveillance cameras didn't serve the public good, and boycotted them, we wouldn't have them today. Similarly, if we boycott PDFs with this technology before it becomes the only PDFs available, then I doubt they'll be a problem in the future.

    2. Re:Sure, that works by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Just like I can shop elsewhere if I don't like
      > being captured on a store's video surveillance
      > camera.

      Yes. You can. Contrary to common belief, your choices are not limited to Walmart and Kmart.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  11. Rather pointless by hweimer · · Score: 5, Informative

    PDFs can require users to be connected to the Internet in order to read them,

    No, they can't, PDF is nothing but a data format. Some broken PDF viewers (especially those from Adobe) may do this, but since PDF is an open format, there will always be some other viewers that don't promote spying on their users. Basically, this is the same nonsense as the "no printing" option.

    --
    OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    1. Re:Rather pointless by NetNifty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends how it's done though, if it just plain PDF but with javascript as has been suggested so far, then you are correct.

      However, if for example the document is encrypted and they key is on a server which the PDF points to (and the server logs all IP addresses connecting to it to retrieve the key) then it will work at least for the first time you open it (unless of course we create another server or even p2p network with the keys on it for ebooks which the PDF viewer visits instead).

      --
      Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
    2. Re:Rather pointless by Isthistakenyet? · · Score: 2, Informative
      Basically, this is the same nonsense as the "no printing" option.

      I've found that ps2pdf from the ghostscript package is useful in this situation. If you try saving a PDF with document restrictions as a PostScript file, it embeds some extra code in the PostScript file. This code has a stern warning that removing the code is illegal, and it causes ps2pdf to not work right. However, ps2pdf also happily accepts PDF files as input, it doesn't check the document restrictions, and all of the features are allowed in the PDF files it creates.

  12. They should make another file extension by saskboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than tarnish the PDF name, they should create the Tracked Document Format or TDF and that way users can distinguish between the two. To make people suspicious of PDF right after versions 5 and 6.0 were found to contain security holes, this will be bad for Adobe.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  13. But how will you know? by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disabling Javascript will keep the tracking from working, but if you don't, the transmission is completely invisible to you. It will look like normal HTTP traffic to your firewall.

  14. IP harvesting by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm going to try to present this in a non-paranoid tinfoil hat mentality: I could see this being a great feature if I were in the PDF sending business for marketing purposes or whatever. Now if I were in the FBI/CIA business, this would be great to use, for example, to proliferate PDFs on Kazaa with filenames/tags suggesting they contain info on how to make bombs or blueprints to the Pentagon so that I could collect IPs of whoever's interested in this type of stuff. You see where I'm going with that.

    Also, I definitely do not want to risk exposing my static IP to anyone, especially in a way that involves new technology that may be quite exploitable, just by clicking on a PDF link on google. I'm sorry but c'mon, that's just too much. Nevertheless, assuming the technology is viable, there'll be a demand that will outweigh objection for this new feature and Adobe will do it and make more money.

    1. Re:IP harvesting by MntlChaos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, I definitely do not want to risk exposing my static IP to anyone, especially in a way that involves new technology that may be quite exploitable, just by clicking on a PDF link on google

      Wait a minute... clicking on ANY link on Google exposes your static IP to the content provider anyway.

  15. Slippery slope argument by sanityspeech · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The editor's take on the story makes it seem rather benign. However, the actual story makes it sound more alarming:
    Are Your PDFs Spying on You?
    Like Adobe Policy Server, Remote Approach can FORCE users to be connected to the Web in order to read the documents. It can track who's e-mailing your PDFs to whom, and what they're reading. Real-time. (Emphasis mine)

    FORCE me to go online??? I just hope that technical papers never use this tool.

    Denizens of the PDF world, however, take note. We enjoy--and sell--the differences between PDF, e-mail and HTML, and a lot of those differences are in the realm of security...

    Remote Approach, however, is the beginning of a movement that could chip away at PDF's sterling rep, one document at a time...

    Since the Map-Bot can chase a PDF through e-mail forwarding, it's more powerful data mining than that associated with Web pages, where the vital information gets thrown out when the user's cache is emptied.

    One would think they would come up with a better name than Map-BOT!!!

    Pretty damning, if I may say so.
  16. Re:Thankfully by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not likely, the last change to the PDF license was the ludricrous requirement that all those who implement PDF also implement the "evil bit".. that is the useless tags that forbid you from printing/saving/etc in acrobat (reader).

    No one else paid attention to it. Since earlier versions of the spec didn't have the requirement, there's no way they can enforce it. Other than that stupid requirement, the spec has an open and free license.

    Besides, only Adobe products implement javascript in PDFs to start with, so Adobe brought this on themselves. No other reader will allow this to happen.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  17. Re: Fixing anoying bug in Adobe Acrobat 7 by nick_urbanik · · Score: 2, Informative
    I tried it and it works. Nice Perl program. Must have anoyed you, since it may have taken some time to track it down!

    Thank you.

  18. Acrobat is trouble, how about Foxit? by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As others pointed out, this potential for a security breach occurs of embedded javascript in a PDF document. Adobe's reader is vulnerable by default. Does anyone know whether Foxit (a totally free PDF reader for Windows) is safer?

  19. Refuse to read PDF's, period. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    PDF's are great for printing, but not as easy to view on the Internet as regular html files. The Google "viwe as html" tool will help greatly.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  20. Just one more reason by Peaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That PDF sucks. Use HTML.

    1. Re:Just one more reason by Seather · · Score: 3, Informative

      That PDF sucks. Use HTML. well, html also has javascript; it can also track you. actually just by including a remote image in html you can be tracked, no javascript required, though i'm not sure if pdfs can use remote images about what kind of network connections can be produced to verify certificates. though i must say that i am rather supprised that standard pdfs(adobes reader) allows for this, when i(and assume many others too) see a pdf i see a document, a standardized text file, not something with a mind of its own, it was rather nasty for adobe to sneak in something like this after previosly providing a clean and trusted standard, i guess i should have taken that animated banner as a warning to what has and will become. yes, you can use open source readers but look at all the joe averages that have been led to adobes reader by more tech savy people, joe average isn't reading slashdot and doesn't like change. and no you can't really disable javascript as it will bother about it everytime you close until you give in.

  21. A little technical info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, so I downloaded the demo document, and captured the packets.
    There's a POST to remoteapproach.com (you could block all traffic going to remoteapproach.com, or just repoint remoteapproach.com to 127.0.0.1 or something in your hosts file.
    The POST message looks like:
    POST /remoteapproach/logging.asp?type=view&DocID=123456 7890&GroupID=123456789&ChannelID=123456789 HTTP/1.1

    The thing that gets me is that the content of the request also contains this:
    1 0 obj]/F(/C/Documents and Settings/Administrator/Desktop/MBRemote Approach Manual.pdf)>>>>

    As you can see, it contains the full system path to the file that I opened. This seems like a big privacy issue. After all, Acrobat didn't ASK if it could open the URL.

    The .PDF files can be opened with Ghostscript, and (obviously) do not send tracking information. Simply re-saving the document as PDF doesn't remove the tracking, but converting it (File--Convert) via pdfwrite APPEARS to remove the tracking.

    Some technology.

  22. No. DRM will never end. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. DRM will never end, because those who actually spend time and money producing content like to pay the bills like everyone else. Simple as that.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:No. DRM will never end. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I spend time and money making content and I pay the bills just fine without DRM."

      Sad or not, good or bad, YOU do not represent the VAST majority of content producers

      But HE understands the position of the VAST majority of content consumers, which is more important. Whichever content producers do not understand this are going to suffer pain. Much pain. Try this little experiment: think to yourself "who is king?"

      If the thought popped into your head "the customer is king!" then you are well on the way to having a clue.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  23. Open Acrobat by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My Windows firewall asks for permission for Acrobat Reader to access the Net all the time, and I always deny it. With no effect on the documents. They better not make that connection required, or I'll drop Acrobat entirely, for a snitchfree open alternative. PDF is an open format, with real alternative apps - Adobe would drive people into the arms of their open competition if they required such spyware.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Open Acrobat by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's so stupid about asking whether some doc reader should open a connection to the Net? That's exactly *why* I use the firewall. I could set it to always deny, but I want some apps to notify me when they ask for access, like Acrobat, IE, various Windows processes. Since they're too sneaky to notify me, I have the firewall do it. Just because *you* don't know what your apps are doing, doesn't mean that they're safe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  24. another DRM defeated by the shift key by gblues · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a long-time user of Acrobat, I know you can disable plugins (which includes JavaScript) by holding the Shift key at the splash screen. Just hold Shift while opening the PDF, and voila.

    Nice try, though!

    Nathan

  25. Nothing new. by mystik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is nothing new about this. We've been (unfortunatly) using 3rd party document encryptor to protect some of our client's documents. Users require a plugin installed, but the document is actually encrypted, no javascript involved.

    The document can be configured to ping the server every time any action on the document is performed. (Printing, opening, etc). The server can decide to deny any action too.

    It does support a one-time-online-to-authorize mode (much like Windows Actvation), but that's about it.

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
  26. Hardly a breakthrough by Darkbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My company is already using AlphaMail which does exactly the samething. And my next build of our document delivery system will add javascript to pdfs and webbugs to htmls.

    We're not protecting documents in any way, only capturing the tracking information. A lot of organization don't know that 1 seat license means 1 person and this tracking information would highlight offenders.

    Our subsriptions are 5k+/yearly :-)

  27. PDF is an Open Format by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Informative
    I also choose not to buy content with DRM "strings" attached, such as PDF files...

    By the way, PDF is an open format. There are MANY non-Adobe applications, some of them open source (many not), that both read and write PDF files.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  28. Evil, explained by hummassa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Q: How does this tracking mechanism differ from web log analysers?

    A: Simple, web log analysers aren't capable of tracking redistributions of the same document. If you copy a web page, say about theories in free-market macroeconomics, and e-mail the copy to a friend, say in China, no one will ever know your friend has read it. But if you copy one of those and it's read by your friend there, then certainly your friend will have a red flag (pun intended) on him.

    HTH

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048