Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Launches Sandboxed Reader X
CWmike writes "Adobe on Wednesday released Reader X, the next version of its popular software that includes a 'sandbox' designed to protect users from PDF attacks. Protected Mode is Adobe's response to experts' demands that the company beef up the security of Reader, which is aggressively targeted by attackers. Calling the sandbox a 'new advancement' in protective measures, Brad Arkin, Adobe's director of security and privacy, admitted it will not stymie every attack. But he argued it will help. 'Even if exploitable security vulnerabilities are found by an attacker, Adobe Reader Protected Mode will help prevent the attacker from writing files or installing malware on potential victims' computers,' Arkin said in a post to a company blog late on Thursday."
Any program I run should be have the option of being sandboxed by the the OS if I so choose.
This is pathetic. This program is a "Reader", just that! How hard can it be to fix all of those buffer overflows? Is the source code so horrendously broken that only a sandbox can fix it? What's next? Sandboxing vi ? ls? /dev/null?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Evince works just fine here!
Though it's not linked anywhere, cut-down installs of Adobe Reader can always be obtained from http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader/enterprise/
Yep, true dat. I remember when Adobe Reader first came out, it was the cat's ass - lightweight, did it's job, nothing else. In fact at one time PDFs were used to avoid those infamous MS-Word viruses that spread in the '90's. Now it's suffering from the same feature creep that affects every other (commercial) software vendor - add features or else you don't think you're "adding value". And those new features carry with them all manner of attack vectors and vulnerabilities.
Which is why I don't think vi will suffer the same fate. I'm not an avid follower of it's development, I just use it, but it seems to me that they're keeping it pretty much the way it was intended to be.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/10.x/10.0.0/
A few language options available, and EXE or MSI format.
soon to come: Virtualized Adobe Reader which runs in it's own kernel space, with GUI, multiuser and multitasking support!
and so far hasn't been subject to any major attacks/flaws.
Sadly not true; it was vulnerable to the /launch "vulnerability/feature" as well as a couple of others. Even Sumatra has had one.
Just get Foxit and be done with it. It's light weight, doesn't hang browsers while opening large PDFs, has a SIGNIFICANTLY better search interface, and so far hasn't been subject to any major attacks/flaws.
You're incorrect that Foxit reader has not been subject to attacks or flaws. This article from last year, for instance, describes in-the-wild attacks of Foxit. A Google search for "foxit reader buffer overflow" brings up a number of known (though patched by now) exploits.
Foxit reader, like any other piece of software, is bound to have errors. Use it because you like the interface, or use it because it's less likely to be exploited due to its relative unpopularity. Don't delude yourself into thinking it's completely secure. That's the same fallacious argument that some OSX and Linux users make when saying that their operating systems are immune from viruses or worms. They may be more secure when compared to Windows, but there's nothing in their underlying architecture that prevents them from being exploited with enough effort.
The sandbox is to prevent the cats from shitting in your laundry basket.
Free Martian Whores!
Foxit is fine for home assuming you remember to correctly untick all the adware options. But in a work environment (I work at a printers) on average i'd say Foxit incorrectly renders PDFs about 5% of the time, leading to support calls whereas Adobe Readers incorrect rendering is pretty non-existent. (I actually tried switching work over to Foxit a while ago, nothing but support hassle from incorrectly rendered PDFs)
I'm not defending Adobe here because I think their reader is a bloated pos, but if you're going to recommend a third party PDF viewer then Sumatra is the best, it's light weight, loads damn near instantly and doesn't include a JS engine side stepping a lot of security issues.
Also, on the major attacks/flaws thing. Actually Foxit has had some seriously bad security issues, you need only google for "foxit reader security holes" or look on explot-db to see them.
its not that the Reader has buffer overflows underflows etc, it's the fact that the Reader has so many built in functions such as embedded flash movies and these have their own flaws.. I think adobe should trim or design a lightweight Reader that has less of these features making it more secure!
It seems that the answer that that problem would be to a) allow read write on a file-by-file basis based on a signed "declaration" by the program that specifies what files the program needs, or b) fool the program by pulling copies of the originals into the sandbox so it thinks it is writing to them and runs happily while not interfering with the rest of the OS (isn't that the entire point of a sandbox?)
Get a web developer
There is actually an EASY way to get around this, as well as for apps like CCleaner that try to add crap. Just go to Ninite and check what you want installed. They have over 90 of the most common apps and you can even suggest more to add at the bottom of the page. They have made it a total unattended install with NO TOOLBARS on ANY app they have there, be it Foxit, CCleaner, Java, etc. It also makes setting up a new PC with all the basics as simple as "check box, run installer, done" so enjoy!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Ever since von Neumann came up with this crazy idea of program and data being the same, guaranteeing that something that just manipulates data doesn't also execute code has been nontrivial.
Gives you ample time to uninstall the McAfee Security Scan Plus that gets installed without your permission.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Doing this would be an admission that Reader is insecure. Adobe would never go this route.
And sandboxing the damn thing isn't an admission of crappiness?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Back in the day, it was realized that Display Postscript could be exploited. This was demonstrated in an amusing way with encapsulated postscript files which, when NeXTSTEP's Mail program tried to render them in-line in a message, executed code that would cause your screen to "melt", or would grab all the windows on your screen and spin them around until you clicked the mouse.
Unfortunately, Postscript could also operate on files...
So NeXT added a default "secure DPS context" in which Postscript would execute with the problematic instructions disabled.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Does the Windows installer still place a shortcut to the application on your desktop? Amazingly useful for people who would like to open the reader without any document in it, so you can stare at a grey window, right there on your desktop!
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
The sandbox idea is great.
Adobe couldn't fix all the security flaws in their program, so they wrote another program to put their program in.
Fortunately the new porogram has no security flaws.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce