Slashdot Mirror
Homemade PDF Patch Beats Adobe By Two Weeks
CWmike writes "Sourcefire security researcher Lurene Grenier has published a home-brewed patch for the critical Adobe Reader vulnerability that hackers are exploiting in the wild using malicious PDF files, beating Adobe Systems Inc. to the punch by more than two weeks. Grenier posted the patch on Sunday with the caveats that it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees. Also, PhishLabs has created a batch file that resets a Windows registry key to de-fang the hack by disabling JavaScript in Adobe Reader 9.0, giving administrators a way to automate the process."
We figured that one out in about five minutes. Wrote a quick group policy file and moved on to the next problem.
When loading a PDF, if Reader sees there's JavaScript that wants to run, Reader pops up a dialog along the lines of, "Hey, this file contains executable code which is, y'know, kind of contrary to the whole concept of a 'document'. Do you want to allow the code to run? [Yes] [[Hell, No]]"
This is the cheesy but mostly effective stopgap solution Microsoft adopted when Word became an infection vector for macro viruses. Unless Microsoft got a patent on it, I don't see any reason why Adobe couldn't also use the same approach.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Seriously, JavaScript? In a PDF file? Why would you do that?
Adobe to Lurene Grenier: You decompiled Acrobat in some way to create this fix, in violation of click-through license and DMCA (not to mention making us look incompetent.) We're suing you and we're going to make sure your government put you away in a pound-you-in-the-ass prison for a long long time.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You skip all testing. Just the sort of thing I want to install in my system.
You mean an individual who doesn't have a business to protect or any customers is able to come up with an un-QA'd version faster than the company that produced the product. Amazing!
I'll go for the secret third option, "because she's a feminist". Letting the world know what they find offensive is practically the feminists' national sport. Rather, it would be if they had their own country. And by God, I wish they did.
What i find more interesting is how slashdot is now able to tell the future!
The article boldly claims that something released yesterday has arrived two weeks before the official patch. Now, i know it's possible that the two weeks was taken from Adobe's projected patch fix date, but projections and fact are still different, and journalistic integrity requires a writer in this situation to indicate directly that this two weeks is not actually fact, as we couldn't know that yet. The headline is an outright lie, as far as i can tell, as it relies on future events being a certain way.
Can we not have articles started with lies on slashdot from now on? Maybe keep the lies towards the end?
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
As anyone who has developed complex software with a large installed userbase can attest to, you /cannot/ simply slap together a fix and push it out to millions of people.
Even the simplest one line code change change requires extensive (if targeted) testing when you operate on that scale - the consequences of an "oops" that could result from a hasty fix could easily get far worse than the original issue.
Lurene Grenier has published a home-brewed patch for the critical Adobe Reader vulnerability ... beating Adobe Systems Inc. to the punch by more than two weeks.
What the fuck Adobe? What did you do for those extra two weeks?
it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees.
Oh ... I guess you were trying to make it work on all systems, and checking to make sure that it didn't royally fuck up the user's computer, or introduce another, potentially more serious vulnerability.
"caveats that it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees."
My boss will be pleased. I can push all my releases up at LEAST two weeks earlier now by adding this caveat on to all of my code. Thanks, Geritol.
Yeah, you're right. It's terrible when people use an apostrophe when they mean "your".
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That is NOT funny.
I used to make slides for talks using LaTeX. There are great ways to include animations directly in the pdf that use javascript. I always had far less trouble getting my animations to play than other people at conferences I went to because acrobat reader was all I needed and it is nearly always there. And for the record, the animations were things I really needed since they showed output from simulations.
I've also seen lots of forms that do some math or validation. How do people think that happens?
Again, I think we need to be very careful about executable code but that doesn't mean there are no possible good uses for it.
Pardon my ignorance, but exactly what other format should one use if one wants to use forms?
In my place of work, a large group of individuals each needs to fill out an annual form. It contains some short-answer questions, and a few that requires a few paragraphs to answer. In the past, they have used... wait for it... Word. Yes, I was forced to boot up Word once a year, to fill out this form. You should see the completely disastrous document that results.
For that reason, I always wished our administrators would have figured out pdf forms. You don't "edit" them, as you say; you fill them in. While there are many complaints to make about Adobe, I don't see the problem with pdf forms. Am I missing something?
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Four. One to change the lightbulb, three to form a support group.
But really, it's a trick question because feminists can't change anything.