Slashdot Mirror


Adobe Warns of Reader, Acrobat Attack

itwbennett writes "Monday afternoon, Adobe 'received reports of a vulnerability in Adobe Reader and Acrobat 9.2 and earlier versions being exploited in the wild,' the company said in a post to the company's Product Security Incident Response Team blog. According to malware tracking group Shadowserver, the vulnerability is due to a bug in the way Reader processes JavaScript code. Several 'tests have confirmed this is a 0-day vulnerability affecting several versions of Adobe Acrobat [Reader] to include the most recent versions of 8.x and 9.x. We have not tested on 7.x, but it may also be vulnerable,' Shadowserver said in a post on its Web site. The group recommends that concerned users disable JavaScript within Adobe's software as a work-around for this problem. (This can be done by un-checking the 'Enable Acrobat JavaScript' in the Edit -> Preferences -> JavaScript window). 'This is legit and is very bad,' Shadowserver added."

195 comments

  1. Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought after so many vulnerabilities everyone had turned that off in Reader...

    1. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by jasonwc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. These security vulnerabilities appear to be a weekly occurrence. Anyone that hasn't disabled Javascript in Reader/Acrobat at this point either doesn't care about the numerous vulnerabilities or doesn't understand the risks involved.

      The bigger question is why Adobe doesn't just disable Javascript by default. I have never used a PDF that required Javascript and I've dealt with a number of user-fillable forms. So, what exactly is Javascript being used for? I know that it has some use. However, it seems that the security risk is far greater than any potential benefit of the "feature".

    2. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? After vulnerabilities showed up? I had it turned off or completely disabled (as in: most of the relevant plugins removed) back at version 6 or so, before any of the known vulnerabilities. It was a flaw waiting to be exploited, it was useless for 99% of PDFs out there, and it was one of many things making newer versions of Reader slower and slower to load. Good riddance.

    3. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought after so many vulnerabilities everyone had turned that off in Reader...

      I thought after so many vulnerabilities, everyone* had been turned off of Reader.

      ( * for values of "everyone" composed entirely of Slashdotters.)

    4. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by sexconker · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I agree. These security vulnerabilities appear to be a weekly occurrence. Anyone that hasn't disabled Javascript in Reader/Acrobat at this point either doesn't care about the numerous vulnerabilities or doesn't understand the risks involved.

      I agree. These security vulnerabilities appear to be a daily occurrence. Anyone that hasn't disabled Javascript, Acrobat/Adobe Reader, Flash, Quicktime, Java, etc. at this point either doesn't care about the numerous vulnerabilities or doesn't understand the risks involved.

    5. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I am surprised anyone that comes to /. uses adobe reader anymore. Bloated to an almost impressive level and filled with security holes.

    6. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then someone who is paying you money sends you a pdf and expects you to make comments using Adobe's proprietary comment system.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      So, what exactly is Javascript being used for? I know that it has some use. However, it seems that the security risk is far greater than any potential benefit of the "feature".

      DRM, I've heard. Another reason for having it would likely be that Adobe needs to be ahead of the competition, for example by supporting multimedia content. There are, after all, a lot of very good pdf readers/writers (and editors?) out there.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    8. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by wkk2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      JavaScript in PDFs has always been trouble. I use forms that auto complete, add columns, etc. A compromise might be a default of prompt before running scripts with a recommend/default of "no". I'd always click "no" unless I trusted the source. Since that would marginalize the product it will probably never happen. I wish I had never upgraded from 4.

    9. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We tested turning it off. It broke some important applications that use Reader as part of a workflow. There isn't any money in the foreseeable future to replace / rewrite these applications so Javascript is still on in Reader. This type of stuff is also what keeps us from going to alternate PDF readers. That plus the ability to digitally sign and several other things. Often (unfortunately) large companies find ways to use these things that make use of features that home users or smaller businesses find useless or bloat, etc. Heck, even our SOX compliance app uses this and it also breaks with Javascript off.

    10. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Zumbs · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    11. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by jasonwc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somewhat ironic, isn't it? If you want to use Adobe's security features (digital signing/encryption) and 3rd party software to achieve SOX compliance - you must accept security vulnerabilities from Acrobat/Reader itself.

    12. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by IgnacioB · · Score: 1

      A variety of corporate applications including Adobe Forms use it.

    13. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Then use Reader inside a VM or otherwise a throw away OS. Seems like a fairly secure* sandbox for such vulnerable applications. *Yes a VM itself can be exploited and broken out of, but that is way harder then the swiss cheese of Adobe Reader.

    14. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's easy enough to disable, but everytime a doc gets loaded with embedded JS, the reader will prompt to enable it with a message saying something like "the document may not display correctly" without it enabled. Clicking the "yes" will then re-enable it. The problem with this approach is that we get so many warnings that people may automatically start enabling JS accidentally.

    15. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I just have javascript turned off, the vast majority of exploits use it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Based on the numerous JS vulnerabilities, the default should be "No". A message should warn about the security vulnerabilities of running the document and tell the user only to enable JS (temporarily) if they trust the source of the document. However, it should also mention that if JS is disabled, it may not display correctly.

      The fact is that Adobe simply doesn't care about the vulnerabilities. They have responded slowly or not at all to the issue.

    17. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought after so many vulnerabilities everyone had turned that off in Reader...

      Why the hell does a document reader need JavaScript in the first place?

    18. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Or just uncheck the box that enables javascript in Adobe and save yourself an hour of work.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    19. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      ...or has been repeatedly told by their bosses that it's a "never going to happen" risk and that "antivirus and perimeter security will stop all malware".

      Yeah, I don't work there any more, but there are plenty of people who are all too aware of the twatworthy shitness of acrobat that have absolutely no means of a) switching to an alternative (I love SumatraPDF for windows) or b) turning off the more idiotic default settings "in case it breaks something". Ah, status quo is god... how can you be a "pro-active" engineer/sysadmin when every attempt to do something different is blocked at every turn?

      What you *should* be saying is that Adobe, in realising they have a horribly insecure app, should be turning off things like JavaScript off *by default* and requiring users to turn them on manually. But malware is usually less visible to the user than "this PDF form doesn't work!" so we're stuck with our swiss cheese.

      Thankfully, I'm not in a job where I have to re-image machines after the latest 0-day outbreak... but I know people who do.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    20. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 1

      I've used it for setting up sharing of notes via WebDAV in PDF's.

      Works really well, actually.

      Although I don't know how much that matters if they can't secure their PDF format.

    21. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The bigger question is why Adobe doesn't just disable Javascript by default.

      Because the intent is to push you towards using their software for as many things as they can get you to. The more things you use it for, the more reliant you are on it, the more likely you are to buy more copies.

      I don't think it's all that nefarious in intent. They want their software to be useful and cutting-edge. If their intent was only to create a fast PDF reader/writer, then they'd be done sometime around Acrobat 4. Every version since would be bug-fixes, performance improvements, and updates in the UI to keep up with changes in the OS UI, and it's hard to convince people to buy updates for those things.

      Not that it would be bad if they'd done that-- I'd be more likely to buy a copy right now if that was the path their development had taken.

    22. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      "What you *should* be saying is that Adobe, in realising they have a horribly insecure app, should be turning off things like JavaScript off *by default* and requiring users to turn them on manually."

      My post:

      "The bigger question is why Adobe doesn't just disable Javascript by default."

      So, I *DID* say that Javascript should be disabled by default.

    23. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention that -- you know all those new computers the stores sell every day? That's "everyone".

      Dad just bought a new computer last month[1]. I had him on Ubuntu for the last two years, and I haven't used Windows since W98 -- so basically I forgot Acrobat till last night when he showed me a screenshot of his desktop while he was experimenting with the Snipping Tool[2]. Yeah, there was the Adobe icon, and I said "oh shit" and had to dig around Google to find out what the preferences look like these days so I could tell him how to turn js off.

      [1]Yup, 'black screen of death' immediately, but that's another story.
      [2]Yup, you /still/ can't just press PrnScn and get a screenshot dialog. Sigh...

    24. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Whoops - comprehension failure on my part, apologies. Oh for an edit button...!

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    25. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by rho · · Score: 1

      I had to deal with a PDF form that used all kinds of whizzo crap. Uploading of files, submitting to a server over the Internet, really flashy stuff.

      It didn't work at all on a Mac, and worked poorly on a PC.

      God save us from developers who read "How To Be An Unleashed Javascript PDF Dummy in 21 Days".

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    26. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      "So, what exactly is Javascript being used for?"

      It's admittedly rare, but there are cool uses. The SSA-X2 character sheet for 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons is a good example: you get the benefits of an auto-calculating character sheet, nicely formatted printed output, and portability.

      That said, I don't trust Adobe to not screw it up again, so I'd like it to default off. (Of course, I don't trust Firefox either, which is why I like NoScript.)

    27. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java script is a "feature" for marketing. As "by oDDmON oUT (231200) on Tuesday December 15, @11:27AM (#30445472)" says below, (on Mac) use Preview.

    28. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What proprietary comments system? Adobe's reader generates the same standard PDF annotations as Preview.app. You can find the format well documented in the PDF spec if you want to implement it for your own reader.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The one described here:

      http://www.dynamicgraphics.com/dgm/Article/28754/

      I don't think it is the same thing as annotations, there are postings all over the web asking how to use open source tools to "Enable for commenting" in Reader, and no answers.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The commenting described on that page is entirely standard. I think it's part of PDF 1.3, but it may even be from an earlier version. The enable for commenting thing is a bit more interesting. Most readers let you annotate any PDF file, but Adobe Reader disables commenting by default and only enables it if you set a particular flag in the metadata. I think most open source tools set this flag by default, but the Adobe authoring tools don't, so you often end up with PDFs that you can comment on in Preview.app, but not Adobe Reader (unless you buy the expensive version).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It isn't a simple metadata flag, Acrobat cryptographically signs the pdf to enable commenting. The fact that it only works in Reader is the basis for my calling it "Adobe's proprietary comment system", I never said anything about it being the only way to make comments in a pdf.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    32. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      DRM, I've heard. Another reason for having it would likely be that Adobe needs to be ahead of the competition, for example by supporting multimedia content.

      It is also useful when creating a pdf from web content, the javascript allows you to append some embedded links and such for offline usage

    33. Re:Anyone still has JavaScript enabled? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Here is a sample file with the commenting I am talking about enabled (I didn't generate the file and have nothing to do with it, I just tracked it down off the internets...):

      http://www.afritz.org/freetools/adding_PDF_comments.pdf

      If you have a recent version of Reader installed, add a comment to it and save. If you then open the file in another pdf viewer, I am pretty sure you will not be able to see that comment. So the system is proprietary to Adobe (assuming I have my ducks in a row).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  2. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why on earth do you need JavaScript in a PDF?

    1. Re:Really... by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Interactive forms. Forms that change options and check parameters when entered, etc etc.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they already program the Reader software, then why even use JavaScript to handle interactive form input? Program their own handler. Using third party products to "be lazy" just open up those security holes.

    3. Re:Really... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To send an email after filling out a form and clicking sumbit in a PDF.

      Honestly - It's not really like the Adobe reader has the vulnerability, its just javascript in general. I mean it's not great that the reader will execute the code just by opening the file - but now that you know it does that, is it really the readers fault? Isn't the user executing the code as if he were clicking a button now?

    4. Re:Really... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      to do useless fancy web2.0 crap. it really is not needed. We disabled it automatically across the company.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Really... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      using existing tools can also reduce bugs - if a tool has been around long enough.

      Are you sure this isn't an in-house fudge-up of Javascript?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    6. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It's not really like the Adobe reader has the vulnerability, its just javascript in general.

      Citation?

      According to TFS, this is specific to Adobe Reader, and it’s an actual bug, not just “executing the code”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that PDFs have their own language, but nobody bothered to learn it, so they added JS ability to the spec and now people actually (occasionally) do use it.

      I agree however, I don't see the need for more than just something like mathxml.

    8. Re:Really... by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      It's more useful than you might think. I've personally used it for two purposes:

      • For a food diary, I put in my current weight and it calculated my daily caloric needs and calories burned for different intensities of exercise.
      • For roleplaying game character sheets, there are a ton of fields that are dependent on other fields. Javascript lets you enter your dexterity score, for example, and your dexterity mod, defenses, and dex-based skills are all updated accordingly.
      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    9. Re:Really... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Since they already program the Reader software, then why even use JavaScript to handle interactive form input? Program their own handler.

      On the other hand, why write your own handler for interactive forms input when the OS can provide that service to you (presumably with much greater security, much less coding errors, desktop theme consistency, and other benefits)?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would have thought that a spreadsheet would be the better application to use for that.

    11. Re:Really... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      For roleplaying game character sheets, there are a ton of fields that are dependent on other fields. Javascript lets you enter your dexterity score, for example, and your dexterity mod, defenses, and dex-based skills are all updated accordingly.

      That sounds like a nice sheet. Could you post a link to it?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    12. Re:Really... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Adobe Acrobat Reader uses the Mozilla SpiderMonkey Javascript engine.

    13. Re:Really... by kbielefe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that I don't trust myself, but this is really not the time to solicit javascript-enabled pdfs from strangers.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    14. Re:Really... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      to do useless fancy web2.0 crap.

      Yeah, like form validation. Who needs useless fancy web 2.0 crap like form validation? I say we should all trust the user's input. Users never make mistakes.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re:Really... by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      Any other time and it would be off-topic

    16. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      For roleplaying game character sheets, there are a ton of fields that are dependent on other fields. Javascript lets you enter your dexterity score, for example, and your dexterity mod, defenses, and dex-based skills are all updated accordingly.

      I’m just echoing what the other guy said, really, but I created a helluva Excel spreadsheet that did that for Runescape. Why on earth would you use a PDF?

      Heck... I could probably even make it import the player data from the hiscores website, but I didn’t ever bother trying.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:Really... by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Using a PDF means you don't have to worry about spreadsheet versions. A spreadsheet app is also substantially larger than a PDF reader. Not everyone even has spreadsheet software installed on their computer.

    18. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Oh, whatever did they do back when paper was actually used for forms? All those silly users, able to write whatever they wanted with no input validation whatsoever!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    19. Re:Really... by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you use a PDF?

      Because it's much easier to identify the fields while you're editing, and it's much prettier than a spreadsheet when you print it out.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    20. Re:Really... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      +1 Ironically Funny

      All the spiffy things you can do with scripting-enabled PDF really should qualify it as an "attractive nuisance". Every good trap has irresistible bait, after all.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    21. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Because it's much easier to identify the fields while you're editing

      Having no experience with a PDF, you’re going to have to describe that for me. Referencing cells is pretty easy in Excel, and you can lock all the non-user-editable cells so that they can only move the cursor into the ones they can edit.

      much prettier than a spreadsheet when you print it out

      Prettier... how?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:Really... by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      Imagine a sheet that looks like the one from the back of the book, but you can type in it and all the numbers fill in automatically. It's not that I think spreadsheets are unnavigable, it's just that using a pdf is a much more pleasant experience to the eye. When I look at something for hours on end, I want it to look nice. I also like to be able to give it to a player and they are familiar with the layout.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    23. Re:Really... by Deagol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > A spreadsheet app is also substantially larger than a PDF reader.

      This *is* Adobe we're talking about here. For grins, I just installed Adobe Reader 9.2 and Gnumeric 1.9.16 on a XP VM, and for the informal survey of the "Program Files" directory, Adobe (203MB) weighs in at almost twice that of Gnumeric (106MB).

      I vote for using the best app for the job. In the case of this thread, I wholeheartedly think the spreadsheet is that tool.

    24. Re:Really... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Indeed, errors never happened on paper forms because users never make mistakes. We should probably just go back to a paper-based model for everything. No one ever got a trojan from a paper form.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    25. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Using white cell borders, changing the default font from Arial, etc... you can make a spreadsheet look nice, too.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    26. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point. >.>

      Make your PDF with fields that are fillable.

      Design your system to read the data from the PDF.

      THEN validate it.

      That’s how the paper system worked, except that a real person had to read the form and enter the data for the computer to validate and store.

      There’s no reason a dumb form needs to have scripting. If you want live validation, use HTML/JavaScript/Ajax. There’s no reason to re-invent the wheel.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    27. Re:Really... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The forms are becoming less dumb. What happens if you go to import the data and validate and find it has an error? The user is probably long gone. We need smart forms. It's odd though that our online models are moving to the offline world, if that was my client I would just tell them that the form is online, not in a PDF. I'll put a link in the PDF to launch the online form.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    28. Re:Really... by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it is a lot of pain to do all that, and then someone opens it in a different spreadsheet program, and it will look like crap again. As someone above said, one should use the right tool for each job, and when designing a layout of a document and typesetting it, spreadsheet is not the tool.

      --
      AccountKiller
    29. Re:Really... by lahvak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, PDF format is a crippled postscript. It was intentionally crippled so it will NOT be a language, because distributing documents written in a programming language was not secure. Then they realized they crippled it too much, and added javascript to it. It is an improvement, since the scripts are localized in the document, easier to identify, they can be disabled if you want to, etc.

      I think in general having scripting language embedded into an interactive document format is a good idea, however, it seems that Adobe's implementation is rather buggy and badly designed.

      --
      AccountKiller
    30. Re:Really... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it is a lot of pain to do all that

      No, not really...

      and then someone opens it in a different spreadsheet program, and it will look like crap again

      ...and what will your fancy PDF look like when I open it in Sumatra PDF viewer?

      when designing a layout of a document and typesetting it, spreadsheet is not the tool

      A spreadsheet is a layout tool. Not the tool... but if you also want to do calculations, it’s a good tool. It just uses rectangular areas to define the layout of the document instead of paragraphs.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    31. Re:Really... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Bah, I am not planning on opening it on Windows with Adobe Reader, anyway...

      ...but yes, I appreciate the irony

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    32. Re:Really... by mightyteegar · · Score: 1

      What if you want to modify it?

    33. Re:Really... by andreyvul · · Score: 1

      fuck that
      $pdf_reader => screenshot ftw

      --
      proud caffeine whore
    34. Re:Really... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not really like the Adobe reader has the vulnerability, its just javascript in general

      Absolute and total nonsense. JavaScript always runs in some kind of sandbox (I only know one person who is writing a kernel in JS, and he hasn't got very far), either provided by the hosting application or by the OS. It can not interact with anything other than objects that the program created unless explicitly allowed to by the sandbox. Blaming this on JavaScript is like blaming a Windows (or Linux, or whatever) vulnerability that let unprivileged code destroy your master boot record on C.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re:Really... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What were you planning on opening it with? I just tried a PDF that requires JavaScript on Apple's Preview.app (which is, in my experience, the most fully featured PDF reader apart from Adobe's abomination) and it didn't run the JS.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    36. Re:Really... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I think in general having scripting language embedded into an interactive document format is a good idea, however, it seems that Adobe's implementation is rather buggy and badly designed.

      Personally, I disagree. I might be wrong, but I think having a scripting language embedded in an interactive document format is often not a very good idea. I think it's better to keep a separation, if possible, between "document" and "program". A document is a passive this which is read, and a program is the thing that does the reading.

      The reason is that we've seen over and over again that trying to make "interactive documents" causes security problems. The natural assumption by users is that documents are passive, and so opening a document is virtually harmless. But then people get the bright idea to turn office documents and PDFs into executable files, and you get tons of exploits.

      Personally, I think we'd be better off if we even separated out web browsers into two programs: one that views static pages, and one that runs web applications. I understand if that idea sounds stupid to people, but I think the current way we're dealing with this stuff is only sort-of working, and it's more confusing to people than we techies tend to think.

  3. Javascript Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have to use Reader, ALWAYS disable Javascript. It always seems like that's was these exploits use. Or use one of the many PDF reader alternatives.

    1. Re:Javascript Again by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      With PDF being an open standard, and there being tons of free lightweight readers out there, there is really no excuse to use the Acrobat Reader.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Javascript Again by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What bothers me about this is that once its disabled it just prompts you to enable it once it senses a JS PDF. The end user, if he or she has rights (and they do at home), just clicks another OK box instead of being forced to go into preferences and turn it back on. Once thats clicked it runs the JS and the exploit. Its ridiculous its even on by default, let alone this UI stupidity.

      The next version of Acrobat should just have it off by default. Force people to turn it on. Chances are 99.9% of users have no legitimate reason for a JS PDF.

    3. Re:Javascript Again by JeffSpudrinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have javascript disabled at each user login on our network (through the logon script), just in case someone has re-enabled it when their system was last logged on. I haven't found a way to totally lock it out yet.

      The huge problem is that Adobe offers to enable javascript for users when they open a PDF with Javasript in it. It displays a message along the lines of "you're not seeing everything here unless you enable javascript...click here to enable it" with a big friendly "YES" button. Kind of defeats the purpose when it's made so easy for users to re-enable.

      I warn users not to enable it, but most either don't care or don't pay attention...and at least 80% of them will always click "YES" or "OK" just to get a message box to go away without reading it. (Invariably followed by a tech call stating "I clicked OK on something...what's wrong with it and why don't you know off the top of your head what I did wrong?")

      Nice of Adobe to make it so helpful and user-friendly to re-enable the most dangerous part of their software.

      -JJS

  4. How many bad code offsets has Adobe bought? by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    This shit happens every other week now.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  5. Does it run Linux? by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Normally that would be my first response as a joke, but I begin to wonder if Adobe could affect anything that is not root-level (or admin level).

    1. Re:Does it run Linux? by MrMr · · Score: 1

      I guess it still doesn't run on x86_64 with installing a lot of 32 bit junk.

  6. Adobe still used why? by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

    Why is Reader being used in large-scale deployments? It's freeware-ish and gets no more support from Adobe than many of the other free pdf reader alternatives out there would get. I have Reader installed at my work without having Writer or Photoshop either.

    1. Re:Adobe still used why? by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Sheer lack of mental motivation to change what you use.

      Nothing new.

      Well, maybe some Adobe fan will tell you that some obscure functionality is missing from Foxit Reader.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:Adobe still used why? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe some Adobe fan will tell you that some obscure functionality is missing from Foxit Reader.

      Certainly there is missing functionality. This article points out one such instance of missing functionality.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Adobe still used why? by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would love a good alternative personally. All my users do is read the PDFs and we use PDFCreator for merging documents. I just havent found one that seems to be solid enough for the enterprise push. Any recommendations from people who have made the switch? I am getting tired of patching every 5 minutes.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    4. Re:Adobe still used why? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      XPDF and Ghostscript.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Adobe still used why? by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Have you used those on a network, eg in an office environment where it has stood the test of time?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:Adobe still used why? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Adobe still used why? by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      any pros or cons vs foxit?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    8. Re:Adobe still used why? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Cost -- the full product is hundreds of dollars -- and brand recognition, which is important to PHB's.

    9. Re:Adobe still used why? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      On Windows? Foxit Reader or PDF Xchange viewer ( http://www.docu-track.com/ ). Unlike Acrobat Reader, both have tabbed interfaces, can remember which docs were open and reopen them automatically.

      I think PDF Xchange also will track where you were in each opened document and will take you right
      back to the page you were reading when reopened.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    10. Re:Adobe still used why? by dslbrian · · Score: 1

      I would love a good alternative personally. All my users do is read the PDFs and we use PDFCreator for merging documents.

      Free and you don't even need to install them. Just unpack in a directory:

      Foxit Reader Portable

      Sumatra PDF Portable

      For merge/split: PDFTK Builder Portable

    11. Re:Adobe still used why? by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      By default the free version has an advertisement at the top right. However, you used to be able to disable the ad in the menu settings. I'm not sure if you can still do that. Oh, and the full screen reader has a white border which I find annoying. Adobe Reader has no such border. I also am not a big fan of Foxit's update screen. There are too many components to update and it is therefore annoying. They also try to push their other pay products.

      Foxit also has better options for adding comments and highlighting, among many other features, which I don't believe are available with the freeware Reader.

    12. Re:Adobe still used why? by mzs · · Score: 1

      I xpdf on unix, Preview.app on OS X, and Sumatra on Windows. Weren't there some vulnerabilities in Foxit for Windows about two years ago?

    13. Re:Adobe still used why? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I cannot really say, I never dealt much with Foxit.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:Adobe still used why? by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Heck I will take vulnerabilities every 2 years vs these monthly items in Reader, not to mention reader is so bloated it barely works in the first place.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  7. Preferences? by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    This can be done by un-checking the 'Enable Acrobat JavaScript' in the Edit -> Preferences -> JavaScript window.

    I've used Reader forever, and I never even noticed that there was a preferences dialog. There's 26 sub-dialogs, each with one or two dozen options, and (checking a few at random) I see several that look worthy of more investigation. Anyone know of any recommendations of where I should start?

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    1. Re:Preferences? by Killer+Orca · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wherever it says 'Uninstall'

    2. Re:Preferences? by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or Here

      Both are good places to start. You can end at the other.

      Although, Foxit has added the Ass - err, Ask toolbar, which sucks. Fortunately you can not agree to the toolbar's terms, and it won't install (but Foxit will still install)

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Preferences? by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could try the Edit -> Preferences -> JavaScript window. Here, I’ll make a little instruction sheet for you.

      http://img38.imagefra.me/img/img38/1/12/15/clone53421/f_viwjj0m_1729695.jpg

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Preferences? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      In W7 I had a problem where installing Foxit while Adobe were present would cause W7 to regularly forget the existence of the pdf extension, forcing the user to choose the program to use when trying to open a pdf. The fix were to uninstall Adobe and reinstall Foxit.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:Preferences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, thanks. That's nice and all but my company blocks all JPG images. Could I get that in a PDF?

    6. Re:Preferences? by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      I think Foxit still includes just the "zip" option instead of an installer -- that's what I've always used.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    7. Re:Preferences? by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Thats because Adobe it's a total bitch with its registry settings. Chances that you have something adobe related in the start up list?

      Set you browser to download the PDF, not to open inside, then you can open it with another reader while you keep Adobe's buried and isolated until you really need it.

      Adobe should stop creating new Creative Suites or rebranding FLASH AD NAUSEAM and fix all that crap. I don't mind if I can GPU-ohshiny zoom in PS if theres a whore all laid down asking for some scriptz 24/7 .. And Adobe don't seem to care a bit, I guess it's time for boycott.

    8. Re:Preferences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest update of Foxit Reader also enables the "Run as administrator" attribute by default, which is absolutely ridiculous.

  8. Acrobat attack. by NoYob · · Score: 5, Funny
    They're horrible. You have guys flipping and attacking you with their feet while standing on their hands. You have two other guys with one sitting on the other's shoulders while they punch down on you. You try to fight back and they just do backflips away or jump and balance on some pole way above your head.

    Yikes! I hate acrobat attacks!

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Acrobat attack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that on the Fox special, "When Acrobats Attack!"

    2. Re:Acrobat attack. by clem · · Score: 1

      Or else you have Daryl Hannah trying to break your neck between her inhumanly powerful thighs.

      Mmm...acrobat attacks.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  9. Dear Adobe: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either fix your javascript holes or disable it till you do.
    Sincerely, A.C.

  10. BUT WAIT!!!! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No one uses Adobe Reader for anything other than business PDF's.

    Seriously, The launch time for a PDF off the web is too large for me to bother. First it's gotta download that 7 Meg file, then Adobe's gotta kick start, and then it doesn't let me highlight anything to keep me from copying and pasting.

    Seriously - I have only ever seen PDF's used at work and at school, and anywhere else they exist usually aren't worth the bother.

    So who are the people taking advantage of these vulnerabilities?

    1. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Acrobat and Reader are bloated. Try something a little lighter like XPDF or Okular.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large number of journal articles are pdfs, seriously!

    3. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Your problem is not PDF, but your PDF reader.

      Change it, you will see how fast it can be with a proper application.

      Oh, and it's not only the reader, everything from Adobe is as slow as humanly possible.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    4. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by jasonwc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Half of my readings in Law School are scanned documents/books in PDF format. Many of the documents are 25-40 MB in size and several hundred pages. I find that PDFs actually load very quickly - much faster than a similarly sized Word or Open Office document, and easier to read. Of course, you can use any PDF reader and not just Adobe Reader/Acrobat.

      On my Core 2 Duo and Core i7 systems, I can open PDFs pretty much instantaneously (less than 0.5 seconds). The only delay is the download. Thankfully, this is one area where Comcast's 25 Mbit "Speedboost" actually comes in handy. At school, being able to download at 100 Mbit/sec makes the files load even faster. The only issue is that Adobe Reader sometimes stalls and I have to try again. However, I find the Adobe reader plugin to generally work better than the alternatives, and I like the full screen reader. I've used Foxit for the tab support but I prefer Reader for its menu layout simplicity when I don't need many documents open.

    5. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by farlukar · · Score: 1

      First it's gotta download that 7 Meg file, then Adobe's gotta kick start, and then it doesn't let me highlight anything to keep me from copying and pasting.

      how to not use reader inside a browser

      And re:slow & bloated; just go to the plugin directory and delete anything you have no need for (ie. most of it). Voilà, fast-booting, non-bloated adobe reader.

      imnsho, anything xpdf-based is way slower than acrobat in page-rendering, and generally not clever enough to search ligatured words.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    6. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by maxume · · Score: 1

      They infect ad networks, automatically launching reader, and their exploit.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Reader 9 isn't really all that sluggish, and opposed to the alternatives, it actually has nice on-screen rendering (both the final product, and the initial presentation of that product, the others either have shit font support, need time to pre-render or tear all over the place...).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I second Okular, it does this wicked thing where while dragging a document to scroll, the mouse cursor wraps from the top of the screen to the bottom (or vice-versa). It seems odd when you hear about it, but once you use it you'll swear by it.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    9. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      How else do you get portable documentation if you don't use PDF? There's no other format that can do what it can do, period.

    10. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Scientific papers are distributed as PDFs, which is a fairly substantial (and important) market. Of course, there's little reason to use Adobe Reader itself, as there are plenty of alternatives.

    11. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Now check your auto-start and see how many Adobe shit is auto-loading every boot.

      Hell, probably the reader doesn't even stop once you close your PDF but is still running in the background.

      I'd rather have a virus then an adobe application.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    12. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have a virus then an adobe application.

      That raises an interesting question.

      Would you perfer to have AIDS, or to be kicked in the balls every morning?

    13. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: I disabled the preloader.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Well, there's PostScript. PostScript is already a Turing-complete language, so it doesn't need JavaScript, although I'd much rather program in PS than JS given the option...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Other than PostScript being an overly verbose language (you don't want 20MB PS files to be the new norm do you?), it's not readily consumable by Windows. No built-in reader or viewer, the best you can do with it is convert it to PDF.

      Let's not forget its overly verbose nature also means it's inappropriate for handheld devices.

      As I understand it, PostScript has a single thread of execution when being read -- it's a script which has to be executed linearly -- in other words it "runs" much like a tape. PDF has the ability for multiple streams (everything's a stream in PDF, whether it's text, graphics, or whatever) to be processed / rendered in parallel. Unless I'm wrong this is a considerable speed disadvantage as well.

    16. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most of what you say is wrong. PostScript is no more verbose than PDF - they have a large overlapping subset - and both use almost the same drawing model. PDF has better support for metadata and a few other things (better support for raster images too). PDF has compression built in, but PostScript is usually gzip'd and most readers can understand gzip'd PostScript streams. PDF is also linear. There is no concept of threading in either. The difference is that PostScript is just a programming language, so the only way of getting to the nth page is to run the code for pages 1-n and discard the intermediate results (although often you can just scan the stream for flush page commands and ignore the first n-1). Given that most PostScript printers come with something like a 50MHz MIPS processor, and the NeXTstation used PostScript for the entire display on a 25MHz 68040, I think you are vastly overestimating how difficult it would be for mobile devices to support.

      There are several reasons why PDF is a better choice than PostScript, but not the ones you list.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      As a test for the verbosity, I created a single page document in Windows Write with the text "Hello World" on it and "printed" it to a file using the Windows HP Color Laserjet 8500 PS driver in XP Service Pack 3. I distilled that file using Acrobat Distiller 9 (from the Acrobat 9 Pro product). I used the "standard" option. Results are labeled "Size1". I also did the same with a list of server names (42 lines long, 1KB txt file)(Size2). Then I took an existing 52KB PDF file, a 3-page phone list with fonts and formatting (Size3), printed it to PostScript from within Acrobat 9, then distilled the output using Distiller 9 and compared sizes. (Yes the resulting PDF looked just like the original PDF). Here are the results:

      Type / Filesize1 / Filesize2 / Filesize3
      PS / 28KB / 27KB / 748KB
      PS (GZip) / 10KB / 9KB / 111KB
      PDF / 9KB / 24KB / 42KB

      So for small file sizes you're right, it doesn't make a difference. For larger files, at least for my examples, PDF is substantially smaller even than GZipped PS.

      There is no reason one couldn't create a multithreaded PDF reader -- unlike PostScript you don't have to render all pages up to the current one. Each page has a TOC with links to each stream, along with positioning information for that stream.

      As far as mobile support goes, if it's so lightweight in size and rendering requirements, it would be widely supported. I think you're confusing RISC capabilities with CISC capabilities. Formatting PS in printers (and on the NeXT platform) has almost always traditionally been done using RISC chips.

    18. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most PostScript printer drivers do not generate good PostScript, they target the PDF-like subset to reduce the CPU load running the resulting PostScript. Recent versions of PostScript actually support the same per-page (and even per-sub-page) separation for concurrent rasterisation.

      Creating a multithreaded PDF reader is only useful if you want to rasterise pages concurrently.

      RISC versus CISC is completely irrelevant - handhelds have RISC (ARM or MIPS) CPUs and NeXT systems always used a CISC chip for PostScript - the 68040 by default and an i860 (VLIW) if you had the NeXT Dimension board.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:BUT WAIT!!!! by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Creating a multithreaded PDF reader is only useful if you want to rasterise pages concurrently.

      You can also rasterize multiple streams on the same page, which could prove useful depending on the number and type of streams. See this for a product which does exactly that ( http://www.iptech.com/Home/NT_Products/TurboRIP/turborip_-_adobe_postscript_3_.html ). With the average processor having multiple cores, and as many professional printers have adapted to a PDF workflow, I think we'll see more demand in that area.

      Given that most PostScript printers come with something like a 50MHz MIPS processor, and the NeXTstation used PostScript for the entire display on a 25MHz 68040, I think you are vastly overestimating how difficult it would be for mobile devices to support.

      You can't have it both ways. Either it takes sufficient enough processing power on CISC chips to process PostScript that vendors

      target the PDF-like subset to reduce the CPU load running the resulting PostScript

      or it doesn't. It would make no sense for a vendor to make the optimizations you claim -- just to lower CPU usage -- if that weren't an issue on modern CISC chips.

      I have some experience with both PDF and PostScript so far as professional printing goes, and PostScript -- while yielding more accurate output in general -- tends to result in much larger print spool files and require larger total printer memory than PDF. That's exactly why the RIP market devices and pre-spoolers (Fiery etc) are used -- printing PostScript is extremely taxing on most devices. You may not be familiar with these devices ( http://www.wide-format-printers.org/EFI_postscript_RIP_servers/EFI_Colorbus_Splash_RIP.html lists a few). Maybe people buy these because the drivers are fat, but in that case you shouldn't see such a wide and developed market for those devices. In real-world use, PostScript is slow and fat compared to PDF.

      RISC versus CISC is completely irrelevant

      All RIP devices I've ever seen were RISC chips, and so were most of the in-printer PostScript boards. Just because recently we've seen more CISC chips in printers doesn't mean they're better... again there is a reason that the RISC chips have been used in the past: Performance. Do a Google search of "risc postscript rip +performance -cisco" and the same with "cisc postscript rip +performance -cisco" and see the number of related results.

  11. Why javascript in a pdf reader? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is high time people stop using any pdf reader that uses javascript or opens external links or does anything other than simply render the document on screen. Editable pdf, where one can fill in the fields etc must be a separate application, not plugged into the browser. I feel safe with NoScript controlling FireFox. Hope someone comes up with a good general purpose sandboxer that will sandbox every plug-in.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Why javascript in a pdf reader? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      As others have mentioned, many businesses use the JavaScript features for field validation, action buttons, loading content from a remote DB, etc.

    2. Re:Why javascript in a pdf reader? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      As others have mentioned, many businesses use the JavaScript features for field validation, action buttons, loading content from a remote DB, etc.

      Let those companies get a special version of the PDF reader/editor/validator. Why the hell should a general user who wants to down load a government form to print get a plug-in that has features meant to be used by a microscopic minority of the users? Further the users who need such features usually use it in a protected setting. Not the typical user browsing to download scientific papers or forms or reports.

      Adobe, wake up and smell the coffee. You cant grow up to be a browser. You had a niche application, WYSISWYPrint. Try to compete with the swift, quick to load, quick to render competition or you will be lost in the netherworld between browsers and pdf renderers.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Why javascript in a pdf reader? by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The companies which require this functionality have already decided to use the market leader's product. Since you have absolutely no way of convincing them all to switch to something else, perhaps you should be the one to look for alternative solutions.

      You had a niche application, WYSISWYPrint. Try to compete with the swift, quick to load, quick to render competition or you will be lost in the netherworld between browsers and pdf renderers.

      If anything, the PDF standard is increasing usage worldwide. PDF is a very well documented standard -- I speak as someone who wrote a program to create PDF files with images and form fields from scratch using VB 6 with no plugins -- so go ahead and create your own reader, market it and make it the #1. Nothing's stopping you.

    4. Re:Why javascript in a pdf reader? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about plug-ins to PDF renderer. I am talking about PDF renderer being the plug-in to browser. The pdf file input is from the web and it can not be trusted. I want a pdf renderer that will treat all input as potentially hostile and render it strictly. That is all. All your fancy nancy application creating pdf file from scratch is all fine. But if it needs me to enable javascript or hyperlinks in my reader, adios.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  12. I'd say this has been around a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a variation of worm on my machine, being dropped into a .bak file in the adobe directory. I was running 7.0 (somehow, I neglected to ever upgrade). I have since upgraded to 9.2, however, an alternative application seems like a good idea now.

  13. Limit permissions and seek alternatives? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seems like deja vu, since this has issue cropped up before, what with everything from Adobe wanting to install (at least on Mac and Windows) with system level privileges and enable javascript by default. [Tell me again, how is javascript a desirable feature for this file type?]

    Which makes it a good idea to use alternatives like Preview, and Skim (for OS X), as well as Foxit Reader for Windows.

    It's not like there's a paucity of options to get away from Adobe's bloatware, no matter what OS you're running.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Limit permissions and seek alternatives? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Replying to my own last line as an informational thing:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
    2. Re:Limit permissions and seek alternatives? by Rashdot · · Score: 1

      I've been using PDF-XChange Viewer for a while now and I like it. It has a lot more features than Sumatra.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    3. Re:Limit permissions and seek alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like deja vu

      What? DjVu had none such vulnerabilities. But that was back in the time when we still thought it possible to read documents without 3D animation and a scripting interface.

    4. Re:Limit permissions and seek alternatives? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      But what features? Anything your average person is likely to miss?

  14. Don't cross streams by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Separate your programs from your data, and your documents from your interactive media.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Don't cross streams by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      Don't cross streams

      Yeah, that tends to upset the guy at the next urinal.

  15. I haven't used Acrobat Reader in Years by quangdog · · Score: 1
  16. seen it, I think by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was browsing a soft porn site and suddenlty Acrobat launched, then crashed. So it looks like someone really is trying to use this. Since I use Acrobat 4, I think I'm safe from this. (I need a full version of Acrobat for DTP, and version 4 does the job, and quite quickly. If I need to open a later version file I use FoxIt.)

    1. Re:seen it, I think by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like you need NoScript and AdBlock.

    2. Re:seen it, I think by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      AdBlock could block all PDFs – which he probably doesn’t want to do.

      NoScript would not block PDFs that were loaded in frames/iframes or by meta-refresh.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:seen it, I think by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      I did turn off scripting for that site, of course. And I already block most ads (porn site ads can be rather icky, and possibly hostile). I couldn't see what was launching the PDF, may have been in an ad, or the site code itself. But as I said, it just launched and crashed, so no panic.

    4. Re:seen it, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need NoScript and AdBlock.

      Sounds like he needs a better soft porn site

    5. Re:seen it, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link or it didn't happen.

    6. Re:seen it, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if the pdf is launched in a iframe.

  17. And this is why... by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    a DOCUMENT READER shouldn't be interpreting javascript.

    Seriously. Web pages are interactive. Documents are meant to be read and maybe filled out. The only reason we need PDF is for stuff that needs to look the same on every screen and print out the way it looks. We don't need Javascript in them.

    1. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn off javascript in your browser then. As that is what a browser was originally designed for.

    2. Re:And this is why... by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      As has been discussed countless times in this thread already, turn off JavaScript if you don't need it. The rest of us use it for business purposes.

    3. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a DOCUMENT READER shouldn't be interpreting javascript.

      I totally agree.

      A document format which allows embedding javascript seems like Adobes desperate attempt to enforce their products.

      I hope javascript in PDFs won't spread like it did in webpages.
      Nowadays, approximately 50% of the webpages I have to visit every day actually need javascript to work properly (without really needing it, of course) - it's a disaster.

  18. Adobe 5.x... by geekmux · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...was the last good Reader version, with the installer weighing in at a whopping 6MB. After that, feature creep turned it into insane bloatware. I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of PDFs out there are 5.x "compliant" and do not need these newer "features" we never really asked for in the first place.

    Hey Adobe, are you listening? How about you give us JUST a Reader? I would say call it Reader Light, but you would probably get sued by many a beer company...

    1. Re:Adobe 5.x... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Adobe Acrobat 5.x was still kind of bloated. Even on machines nowadays it'll still take a few seconds to boot up - with that annoying little splash screen of some guy prancing about with a few office complexes in the background.

      I've never used just the 5.x reader before, where would you even GET that...

    2. Re:Adobe 5.x... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.oldversion.com/

      They go all the way back to 1.0 for DOS

    3. Re:Adobe 5.x... by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      A few seconds? On a modern machine I can load a 100 page scanned PDF in Adobe Acrobat in under 0.5 seconds (perceptibly instant with Aero) with Acrobat 9.0.2 on a Core 2 Duo/Core i7. Are you using a slow machine?

    4. Re:Adobe 5.x... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      On a Core 2 Duo, 1 Gig RAM on an XP, 20 page PDF takes on average 4 to 5 seconds to load. This is just the full install of Adobe Acrobat 5.0

    5. Re:Adobe 5.x... by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I went from 5 to 9 and wow what a shock. Although I have to admit the last patch helped tremendously (it was suffering from really poor load times).

      And, Adobe, get rid of that stupid FNPLicensingService.exe spyware that tries to run constantly in the background. I detest the idea of not being trusted when I *PAID* for the damn software!

    6. Re:Adobe 5.x... by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      This may be a difference between Windows 7 and Windows XP. Superfetch in Windows 7 loads the binary into RAM after first run - or if it's a commonly used program - automatically. Therefore, I'm almost always running the program from RAM.

      However, even on the initial start, it doesn't take more than 1-2 seconds. I haven't used Acrobat 5.0 in such a long time. Perhaps Reader loads faster.

      Foxit Reader loads very quickly as well.

  19. Dear Anonymous Coward: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

    Sincerely, Adobe

  20. Re:Look at the Acrobat Reader credits. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you've ever worked with such off-shore developers, you'll immediately understand why Reader is such a shitty piece of software.

          Yes because it's ok to buy something and not to bother making sure you're getting your money's worth.

          Responsibility lies with management for not implementing some sort of quality control - ESPECIALLY when dealing with offshore outfits. It's called due diligence. But since a lot of managers only care about their paycheck and not the brand's reputation, etc., well, this crap happens. If the board are too busy figuring out how much to pay themselves on top of that, well, that's the corporate world in a nutshell.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Maybe limitations are a good thing? by SteveHeadroom · · Score: 1

    Do we really need to make everything dynamic and interactive? Why do documents need scripting support? Why do emails need scripting support? We're blurring the line between documents and applications and security is suffering as a result. Are the benefits really worth it?

  22. Help, how do you disable version check on startup? by British · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yesterday morning, my system started up saying a new version of Acrobat reader was available. HOWEVER, reader_Sl.exe couldn't be found on my reader dir, plus I had it disabled in msconfig in the Startup tab.

    How the hell did this thing startup? Adobe doesn't seem to make it easy to disable any pre-loader app on startup. Why does every software company insist on jamming this crap on everyone's system?

    I would love to see Symnatec, etc list this as malware. After all, same symptoms(drains system resources), and was added w/o user consent, nor is it easy to remove.

  23. darn by thelonious · · Score: 1

    I hate when acrobats attack. They're so freaking limber!

  24. Re:Look at the Acrobat Reader credits. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    If you've ever worked with such off-shore developers, you'll immediately understand why Reader is such a shitty piece of software.

    Nevertheless, the Adobe reader still (I'm sorry to say) does a noticeably better job of rendering PDFs than any of the FOSS alternatives I've tried on Linux. Especially if the PDF includes much in the way of text scanned at too low a DPI setting.

  25. Adobe Acrobat by eples · · Score: 1

    Isn't it high time that Adobe got its act together with this thing? Javascript attacks, the whole non-redacted-data text redaction "feature" that recently bit the TSA - I mean REALLY.

    Come on Adobe, you can do better.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:Adobe Acrobat by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      the whole non-redacted-data text redaction "feature"

      I'm not sure if text redaction is a feature, they just drew a bunch of black rectangles over the text and them someone pointed out that that doesn't actually make the text go away, it's just under the rectangle.

      Screw Acrobat, Adobe needs to fix Flash. Flash CS4 is the worst software I've ever used (I've been using Flash since Flash 5, now we're on Flash 10 and they still haven't fixed the major bugs).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Adobe Acrobat by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      The "redaction" was because someone used a text object to overlay the source. They could have avoided failure by using the built-in redaction feature, modifying the pages at the source and generating the PDF from that, or scanning the original (with redacted sections blacked out) as graphics.

      You can't blame the tool for its clueless users.

    3. Re:Adobe Acrobat by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      the whole non-redacted-data text redaction "feature"

      Well, it’s a highlighter pen, with variable colour, opacity, and thickness.

      For some reason the idiots at the TSA thought that an opaque black highlighter would be adequate to obliterate the text. Morons.

      (Before you say “well, duh, anybody would” – no. You wouldn’t trust this on printed documents, either. You’d photocopy them, ensuring that the photocopier’s sensor couldn’t distinguish between the text and the marker it was covered with. The original document could likely still be read... by tilting it, getting the light to hit it just right, etc. Same goes for white-out.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  26. What about brower plugins? by thelonious · · Score: 1

    I loaded a pdf in firefox and didn't see any options within the plugin menus for disabling javascript. Anyone know what to do with the plugins? I haven't used the stand alone reader in a while.

    1. Re:What about brower plugins? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Anyone know what to do with the plugins? I haven't used the stand alone reader in a while.

      No. I haven’t used the in-browser plugin in a while.

      Precisely because of this sort of exploit.

      Any PDF file a website tells my browser to open will get saved to my desktop. If I expected to be downloading a PDF, I open it. If not, it gets deleted.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  27. Why need to view PDFs inline in the browser anyway by AC-x · · Score: 1

    After being bitten by a PDF vulnerability before (I run as a normal user account so it didn't completely own my box and was fairly easy to clean up) I disabled the PDF plugin in Firefox. Now if I try to view a PDF I get an open/download request for the file rather than just opening automatically.

    This way a site can't open any PDF files without me knowing.

    It seems Adobe PDF reader is fast becoming the new IE in terms of web security.

  28. Re:Help, how do you disable version check on start by daveime · · Score: 1

    I would love to see Symnatec, etc list this as malware

    I would love to see Symantec listed as malware ... have you seen how difficult it is to actually uninstall that thing (completely), and what a piece of spamming shit it turns into once your free trial is over ?

  29. n00b question by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Why does PDF reader need JavaScript support?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:n00b question by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It’s necessary for many forms and security exploits.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  30. Re:Why need to view PDFs inline in the browser any by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with "web security" -- IE's problems are because it allows access for remote sites to local resources. It also has a lot of holes.

    MIME types -- the things that enable launching Acrobat when a PDF file is encountered -- are used to determine how to display images, sounds etc. Surely you're not advocating disabling all MIME types, or confirming each one? You could have a plain text page with no images, sounds, etc and you'd never be surprised by things launching or displaying without your permission. You might as well use Lynx at that point.

  31. Re:Why need to view PDFs inline in the browser any by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, he’s advocating disabling MIME types of particularly egregious known repeat offenders.

    Opening PDFs in the browser is just an extra convenience anyway. When I click a link to a PDF, it automatically downloads to the desktop and I can open it from there, if I actually wanted to download and open the PDF. I don’t need it to load inside my browser (and if I didn’t expect it, I probably won’t appreciate having to wait for the plugin to load).

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  32. Re:Look at the Acrobat Reader credits. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Hold on, now, at some point, Adobe WAS a good product, until everybody found out ( did the hackers know way before??) that some javascript was not safe. Hell 3/4 of sites using js in their pages is unsafe, but don't do anything about it.

    The reason why they need any js in there is beyond me, as I have never used any pdfs with js embedded....
    but I am sure there is a reason, they should just take it out completely out of all their versions, and add an add-on utility that adds it back in, that way only the truly knowledged who need it will get it, then they are "use at your own risk crowd".

    Why worry so much, your stocks wont go down if you take out js as a whole and fix 95% of Adobe vulnerabilities because of it. Stocks would go up, no???

  33. Re:Why need to view PDFs inline in the browser any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    And the MIME type "application/x-executable" should enable the Operating System to execute the file.

    Launching a proprietary application which is known to have lots of vulnerabilities to interpret data coming from an untrusted network has clearly nothing to do with security.

    But as long as you can turn it of, there is no need to fall back to Lynx.

  34. CERT guidance for securing Adobe Reader by WD · · Score: 1

    CERT has some suggestions for securing Adobe Reader here:
    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/257117

    Note that the above vulnerability note is not this particular vulnerability, but the same mitigations apply time and time again. The mitigations include:

    - Enable DEP
    - Disable JavaScript
    - Disable automatic opening of PDF files by Internet Explorer
    - Disable the displaying of PDF files in your web browser

    1. Re:CERT guidance for securing Adobe Reader by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      CERT has some suggestions for securing Adobe Reader here:
      http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/257117

      Note that the above vulnerability note is not this particular vulnerability, but the same mitigations apply time and time again. The mitigations include:

      - Enable DEP
      - Disable JavaScript
      - Disable automatic opening of PDF files by Internet Explorer
      - Disable the displaying of PDF files in your web browser

      How about the automatic opening of PDF files by Firefox or Chrome?

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  35. Re:Look at the Acrobat Reader credits. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    You're right that management has to share responsibility. Off-shoring exposes management incompetency. If you get Off-shore programmers that lack experience because they were shoved through some quick schooling to meet demand then they simply won't be able to do the job right even if he were a local.

    The manager should stop the shoddy product from coming out but he won't because he was never good at his job. The difference is when they had to hirer locals at a decent wage they're more likely to be qualified enough to help cover up management incompetency.

  36. Windows again ??? by MrData · · Score: 1
    Notice that the exploit is not so much an adobe one as it is a windows one (http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2009-121422-3337-99).

    Badly designed OS's let badly designed apps, do bad things.

  37. Is it exploitable in Vista and Win7? by Myria · · Score: 1

    From AcroRd32.exe's PE header:

    140 DLL characteristics
          Dynamic base
          NX compatible

    Acrobat was linked with the /DYNAMICBASE and /NXCOMPAT linker options. This means that on Windows Vista and 7, the executable is loaded at a random address and NX is enabled. The DLLs are all loaded at random addresses too. Does the exploit still work with those countermeasures?

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  38. People still run Adobe Reader? by Animats · · Score: 1

    I've been running Sumatra PDF for the last year, and there's less drama.

    The trouble with Adobe Reader is that Adobe keeps trying to make it into a proprietary web browser. It knows about links, it runs Javascript, and it has a DRM scheme. None of which are needed by 99.9+% of PDF documents. Forms are a bit more popular, but PDF forms are kind of lame anyway; you can fill them up, but they don't do anything.

  39. Deja Vu by meustrus · · Score: 1

    Didn't this just happen last month? And the month before that?

    When I first heard about a Javascript vulnerability in Acrobat, I tried to turn it off. It must have worked, because Acrobat complained EVERY F***ING TIME I opened it. Really annoying. I don't know if they've fixed that, but it almost seems to me like Adobe is trying to perpetuate the Javascript bugs not just by having it on by default, but by punishing you for turning it off.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  40. Why Upgrade? by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Acrobat 4.0 works fine.

  41. Re:Look at the Acrobat Reader credits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Xenophobia! Ever wondered how things are getting fixed so quickly now ?

    Btw, Reader and Flash are the most widely available platforms today. Its pretty obvious that it would be targeted the most. I don't think I would be blaming management too much.

  42. Way to go, Adobe! by pyrr · · Score: 1

    I keep hoping that the next big exploit to hit Adobe's crapware will be the one that either causes the company to come to its senses, or even causes almost everyone to abandon it.

    It's almost like Adobe is on a quest to make the most horrible software ever conceived:

    • Slow load times, check!
    • Crapware speedlauncher to slow down Windows systems on startup, check!
    • Build it around exploitable Sun Java, check!
    • Updater that seems to only be good for pestering end user at inopportune times, check!
    • Platform neutral, so its bug exploits can compromise security on Linux & Mac in addition to Windows, check!

    These things are just not acceptable from what is a simple helper utility. Adobe is doing it wrong.

  43. What's the real problem? by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Acrobat uses JavaScript for enhanced functionality. Where are the exploits coming from? Is there something wrong with the actual functions that Adobe is creating (lack of bounds checking, etc.)? Is the problem that the JavaScript engine they are using is full of holes (buffer overflows, etc.)?

    In other words, to recycle an old meme, where's the beef?

    1. Re:What's the real problem? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Acrobat uses JavaScript for enhanced functionality."

      A bit like setting ones undies afire for enhanced warmth.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  44. I selected disable javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in adobe and it requires a windows reboot. This is the most compressed conglomeration of fail I've ever seen (this week)!

    Adobe needs to consider taking a class in computers.

    1. Re:I selected disable javascript by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      What OS? When I disabled JS in Win 7 x64, it didn't ask that I restart the OS or even the application for that matter! I'm pretty sure I had the same behavior in XP. Are you sure the restart was related to changing the setting rather than some OS update? I find that very bizarre.

  45. Can someone help me figure this out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does one go about doing this. I can not find Reader other than in my Add/Remove programs:

    recommends that concerned users disable JavaScript within Adobe's software as a work-around for this problem. (This can be done by un-checking the 'Enable Acrobat JavaScript' in the Edit -> Preferences -> JavaScript window). 'This is legit and is very bad,' Shadowserver added."