Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Confirms Unpatched PDF Backdoor
50Mat writes "Adobe has fessed up to a dangerous code execution vulnerability affecting software programs installed on millions of Windows machines. The flaw, publicly disclosed more than three weeks ago, could allow hackers to use rigged PDF files to take control of Window XP computers with Internet Explorer 7 installed. It affects Adobe Reader, Adobe Acrobat Standard, Professional and Elements and Adobe Acrobat 3D."
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
The browser should be secure by itself but when a plug-in is installed by the user (like Adobe Acrobat Reader) that plug-in can execute code and do pretty much what it what... so I would not blame IE7 for that. But I'm still happy to never have upgrade to IE7... yet.
I found Adobe Reader so slow, bloated, and annoying that I switched to Foxit Reader, which is much smaller and faster. Can anyone say if the vulnerability applies to Foxit as well?
If it's also vulnerable on IE7 + Vista, luckily IE7 runs with such limited privileges that the code execution won't be able to do anything other than writing to the internet temp folder. That is, if you haven't turned off UAC.
From the information available, this is just yet another security vulnerability.
A backdoor is an intentional feature that one puts so that they can take over you computer.
URI and MIME type handling in both Windows and OSX is profoundly broken. It's second only to ActiveX in the opportunity for exploits... the basic problem is that when apps register handlers for local use (eg, 'help:' or '.chm') they are available to untrusted content by default. The fix is to have separate registries or separate flags that allow applications to explicitly register as handlers for internal use, or for use on untrusted documents.
Why do you hate civilization, you luddite?
Did Adobe ask the feds to lock up the person who publicly disclose this flaw? Or do they just save that treatment for the publication of flaws in eBook products that blind people can't use in Russia?
[
From what I understand, and there isn't much in the way of technical details available, this is not an IE flaw. IE, correctly, doesn't assume that a URI is invalid just because it looks odd. This is correct, because there is no way IE can know if an URI for another protocol is valid or invalid. It is the responsibility of the target program to sanitize its input, knowing full well that it comes from an untrusted source.
Oh, I missed to point out what you missed. From http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
Foxit Reader itself is free. As to add-ons, the critical add-ons are free while advanced add-ons are non-free. For example, you can use the following functions for free:
* View or print PDF document
* Basic PDF form operations i.e. filling out PDF forms and printing them out
* Advanced PDF form operations, such as saving filled-out forms and import/export forms, free for personal usage only
* View PDF as text
* Critical add-ons, such as UI language package, JPEG2000/JBIG decoder, CJK package, GDI+ for early Windows version, etc
The followings are several examples of non-free, advanced add-ons:
* Foxit Reader Pro Pack is not free. It includes the following functions:
o Annotation
o Text viewer and text converter
o Form filler
o Spell checker
o Advanced editing tools, including loupe tool, measure tools, image tool, file attachment tool, link tools, annotation selection tool, and more
Actually without Pro Pack, you are still able to annotate a PDF document and print it out. However when you save the annotated document, it will be stamped with an evaluation mark on the top-right corner of the annotated pages. If you purchase a Pro Pack add-on, then there will be no evaluation mark.
...to hyphen hell! The rules - of style that apply to dashes - and hyphens - have evolved to support ease of reading in complex constructions; editors - often accept deviations - from them that will support, rather than --- hinder, ease of reading.
The only one i've heard of (for Windows) is Foxit PDF reader, which is about 2mb - never tried it myself though. On linux, Evince works great, and had no issues with everything i've thrown at it.
Something else that IE (as of last time I looked anyway) and possibly other browsers get wrong is that they try to "guess" the content of the file instead of trusting that what the web server says the file is, the file actually is. If the web server says it is text/plain, it should be rendered as plain text even if it may happen to look like HTML. If the web server says it is image/gif, it should be fed to the gif image decoder.
RFC 2161 (HTTP 1.1) section 7.2.1 clearly says that it is ok for a client to use the filename or content of a file to identify what file type it is (and therefore what to do with it) if and ONLY IF the server does not provide a Content-Type header.
There have actually been security flaws in the past (and may still be even now) caused because different parts of IE have a different idea of what type the file is (in particular whether the file is executable or not)
Then again, considering how many other standards Intercrap Exploder doesn't correctly follow (RFCs and otherwise), its hardly surprising that IE doesn't get this right.
I do wonder if Gecko gets it right (and treats the Content-Type header as gospel) or if violates the RFC too.
That also isnt 100% compliant.
While i use it all the time since it is smaller and ligher ( acrobat reader is free too btw, so that isnt a good selling point ), i have noticed that somethings do NOT render properly.
Have they fixed the weblink bug yet?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the site is slashdotted. Here is the PDF'ed version of the article.
df -h
That's because no ones figured out how to install Acrobat on Vista yet.
Other security sites do call it a Vista issue. It looks like Vista is only OK if IE7 is running in protected mode.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Grr, that link should be opera:config#Trust%20Server%20Types -- Slashdot ate my #
There are GPL versions of ghostscript. They are not as up-to-date though.
The non-commercial licenced one gets new code first it seems.
See here.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The irony of this page (click for 100% scale) is astounding.
I had to snap a shot before Adobe pulls their ad.
Shatner? Is that you?
As someone kindly pointed out to me in an earlier, related post, "interaction" includes just opening the pdf in Foxit, (which I use, and works very well for simple pdf viewing & printing). Don't even have to fill in a form field. So, just as bad as an executable, then. BTW, use CutePDF Writer to make 'em, although many options exist, including Open Office..
/. post complete without oblig. Wiki karma-whore:
Alternatives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu
A great open source, (except under Windows, see Lizardtech), format for scanned files.
Not for Mac users, tho', see:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/20/1449226
For a discussion of this and other pdf 'alternatives'. Still, 'security by obscurity'?
Finally, no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software