Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Latest Adobe Acrobat Reader Update Silently Installs Chrome Extension (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the did-you-hear-something dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The latest Adobe Acrobat Reader security update (15.023.20053), besides delivering security updates, also secretly installs the Adobe Acrobat extension in the user's Chrome browser. There is no mention of this "special package" on Acrobat's changelog, and surprise-surprise, the extension comes with anonymous data collection turned on by default. Bleeping Computer reports: "This extension allows users to save any web page they're on as a PDF file and share it or download it to disk. The extension is also Windows-only, meaning Mac and Linux Chrome users will not receive it. The extension requests the following permissions: Read and change all your data on the websites you visit; Manage your downloads; Communicate with cooperating native applications. According to Adobe, extension users 'share information with Adobe about how [they] use the application. The information is anonymous and will help us improve product quality and features,' Adobe also says. 'Since no personally identifiable information is collected, the anonymous data will not be meaningful to anyone outside of Adobe.'"

94 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. sure I believe you by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Funny

    Certainly trustworthy! "Since no one but people at Adobe designed this, certainly no one in the wide world of hackers, exploit finders, and data sifters would ever be able to decipher and extract anything interesting from this data. I mean, we're just sending this meaningless data back to Adobe for shits and giggles, it's useless information! By the way, I heard that anonymous means that we just don't record your IP address right?"

    1. Re:sure I believe you by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? The courts have determined an IP doesn't prove an identity, therefore it's just more anonymous information.

    2. Re:sure I believe you by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? The courts have determined an IP doesn't prove an identity, therefore it's just more anonymous information.

      Look up what PII is (personally identifiable information). Your full name is PII, as is your address, but neither prove an identify. The IP does not have to prove it was you to be PII. I believe it would fall under non-sensitive, as opposed to sensitive PII such as biometric info, medical info, SSN, drivers license number, etc, but it's still PII (at least IMO, since each country/court/etc could define it however they see fit).

    3. Re:sure I believe you by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      But sadly, this is how the industry looks like. "Security" is achieved if you make sure the data only gets to the manufacturer and nobody else, not if no information leaves the machine of the user at all.

    4. Re: sure I believe you by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They should pop one up asking whether you want to install it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:sure I believe you by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      And they're using Adobe-only features that don't exist in other PDF products? I understand the need for PDF in general, but why Adobe in particular?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:sure I believe you by McFortner · · Score: 1

      Totally secure, unless some government three letter acronym agency demands it and tells us to keep it quiet. Yep, totally secure.

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    7. Re: sure I believe you by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      That's it. Whatever they do (within reason) is fine by me as long as I'm informed and given the option to opt out. I think ALL companies should considering taking that approach.

    8. Re:sure I believe you by gnick · · Score: 1

      Adobe in particular - No other PDF product on the IT schedule. We can't all be Admin.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. It does what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >This extension allows users to save any web page they're on as a PDF file and share it or download it to disk

    I'm pretty sure chrome does that all by itself

    1. Re:It does what? by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      Well using windows 10 I use edge as my pdf-reader, as it is not an extension and edge comes with windows I dont need to install another program\plugin.

    2. Re:It does what? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Rendering speed isn't great for any of the in-browser viewers.

      But my Windows 10 laptop is a Core 2 Duo, so it may perform acceptably fast on your hardware! :)

  3. Chrome is smarter than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When you open chrome It will note the new extension and ask if you want to enable it or remove it.

    1. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I noticed this the other night and it confused me. I was worried that malware creators had found a new way to infiltrate peoples computers. Since this was very strange I denied permission for the extension, thinking it wasn't legit.

    2. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Chrome may be smart, but the users may not be. A whole lot of people will just click "Yes" or "Enable" or whatever the dialog says.

    3. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by narcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Given that Chrome itself is often installed surreptitiously along with popular applications like CCleaner and Avast, it's no wonder that Adobe thought that Chrome users wouldn't mind, or notice, yet another clandestine install.

      Now that I'm thinking about it, Chrome has come bundled with Adobe products as well! That's right, Adobe secretly installs the browser, and tries to set it as default. They've already gone that far, so what's the big deal about sliding along an extension?

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    4. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Yep. Chrome informed me that it was time to complete disable the Adobe auto-updater.

      FYI: Create a dword called bUpdate in \HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat Reader\DC\FeatureLockDown.. set it to 0 to completely disable updates or 1 to only disable the auto-updates and leave the manual checking available in the menu.

      Of course who knows how long before they decide to change or just flat out ignore that entry. But it works for now.

    5. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Yup. Tossed the icon up in the bar and sent me to the Adobe page.

      I immediately uninstalled it, force closed Chrome, and ran a full malware scan, since clearly I had been compromised by some form of browser hijacker, probably from a banner that got past uBlock. Imagine my delight when I found it wasn't a security violation, it was a violation of my trust.

    6. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Trust??!!
      WTF were you thinking trusting Adobe? Or Microsoft? Or Google? Or any modern corporation?

    7. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      There is a signature made by Google attached to the extension. Without the proper signature the ext may only be used in developer mode. Or the user is asked to accept it, or not.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You do not trust Microsoft? What OS do you use? You do not trust Google? What search engine do you use?

      "Trust", in the way it is used in security, means that you have a certain expectation towards a certain resource and you are willing to believe it to perform a specific service with specific license provided by you. In a less abstract way, you use Google as a search engine and you trust it to provide you with reasonably matching results to the search terms you enter, and you also trust it not to deliberately present you with links that are supposed to hijack your browser, install malware onto your machine and/or trick you into doing so.

      The trust the GP is talking about towards Adobe included their willingness to provide him with a PDF reader along with his ability to disable any tacked-on bloatware during the installation. The reason for his trust was prior experience and that it worked that way until now. The breach of his trust is constituted by Adobe not continuing this established procedure.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      A mix of Linux and Windows.
      Never!
      DuckDuckGo, Bing (for porn, of course), Yandex

    10. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by norweeg · · Score: 1

      A lot of people would never see the request. A lot of people ignore sync errors and requests for extension permissions in chrome because it bury's them where users don't look or don't notice.

    11. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Specifically, the violation of my trust was expecting a software updater not to install new, tangentially related, apps. An update to a DLL file to fix a security flaw is an update. A software extension to Google Chrome that mimics "Print to PDF" is a new install. Due to Windows restrictions I could not give them access to the former without access to do the latter. They abused having access for the former to do the later.

      There's also the colloquial version of the term in that this was probably unethical.

    12. Re:Chrome is smarter than that. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      As someone who deploys Acrobat and Reader and their updates across domains, I can tell you that Adobe's documented controls are completely unreliable.

      http://www.adobe.com/devnet-do...

      The ONLY thing I have ever gotten to work reliably is the option to disable putting an icon on the desktop. Disabling automatic updates, stopping automatic updates but allowing manual update checks, disabling the upsell, disabling usage tracking, disabling the login requirement, setting the default printer path, etc. simply behave however they fucking want to. I've set options with Adobe's customization wizard, manually set registry keys with Adobe's customization wizard, manually set registry keys with GPOs, and manually set options in the MSI with Orca. None of it fucking works as Adobe says it should. Once a user launches Acrobat/Reader, or whenever an update is applied, all bets are off.

  4. Funny by no-body · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yesterday or two days ago, Chrome prompted me if want to install something from Adobe, most likely extensions and I clicked no since I did not like those popups. Now looking at chrome://extensions/ - nothing like that there to see.
    What gives?

    1. Re:Funny by simcop2387 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That'd be chrome protecting you from this shit. they've gotten pretty good at detecting and preventing these kinds of drive by installs.

    2. Re:Funny by fisternipply · · Score: 5, Informative

      That was it. My chrome did the same thing not more than two hours ago...which means Acrobat updated itself silently. Which pisses me off. Now, what pisses me off even worse is that it's hard to turn off auto-update in Acrobat Reader DC and requires either editing the registry or downloading and installing another adobe preference manager program (link to help article: https://forums.adobe.com/threa...). And even worse, the data collection was checked by default. A-holes.

    3. Re:Funny by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they've gotten pretty good at detecting and preventing these kinds of drive by installs.

      After gaining a large amount of market share by BEING a drive-by install (as part of java, IIRC), they ought to be good at detecting them.

    4. Re:Funny by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. Adobe reader had only ever checked for updates for me and never silently installed them. I install them all anyway since an unpatched reader is much like browsing the internet with IE6 in terms of attack potential but still all I get is an annoying prompt very frequently to update.

    5. Re:Funny by jon3k · · Score: 1

      What in the world are you talking about? Chrome was never installed as a part of Java. You're thinking of the ask or Yahoo! toolbar, maybe?

  5. The good news ... by Langalf · · Score: 5, Informative

    The good news is when I fired up Chrome, it asked me if I wanted to remove this unwanted extension.

    1. Re: The good news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's installed, silently, by an auto updater. You have to grant it permission before it can run, but it's definitely installed.

    2. Re:The good news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And your reply was...(don't leave a brother hangin)

      Q. Do you want to remove this unwanted extension?

      a.Yes
      b.No
      c.There was an extension? What deadline did I just miss?
      d.F**k yeah!
      e.Remove the extension, AND Cowboy Neal

      provocateur
      too lazy for caps, too lazy to log in

  6. Best News = No News by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't use Adobe anymore, PERIOD.

    1. Re:Best News = No News by fisternipply · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not an option for everyone.

    2. Re:Best News = No News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it is,the inconvenience in doing so might be judged too onerous but the choice remains.

      In my time I have given up:
      microsoft
      adobe
      oracle
      redhat/derivatives
      mozilla
      hp
      sony
      google

      and never used facebook,linkedin,twitter or similar. apple

      And them oment I can get a unix to run natively on a phone I'll choose to remove android

    3. Re: Best News = No News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      do you also encrypt your grocery lists?

    4. Re: Best News = No News by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      I don't encrypt mine, but I obfuscate. How is Big Dairy going to learn about my coffee-drinking preferences when I list "half and half" as "1"?

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    5. Re:Best News = No News by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      I don't use Adobe anymore, PERIOD.

      I kind of have to, using the CS6 Master Suite (about 1/2 of them – the heavies). I am stuck with my current-generation Mac, and will not upgrade past OS X 10.10.5 Yosemite.

      Yes, Apple bought in to this forced upgrade cycle, and is in cahoots with Adobe to make everyone migrate to renting software, which I will not do.

      A program is analogous to a recipe (for a computer). It is a set of instructions == a recipe. Come to my kitchen––I'll bake you some bread. Here, it will not cost me a membership fee to use the bread recipe I bought a copy of long ago. I paid for it already, and can use it forever without further charges. I have to use my kitchen, just like any program uses my computer to execute its instructions (recipe).

      Best analogy describing software "subscriptions" that I've heard. AVOID.

  7. If you have Chrome why having Acrobat Reader? by JcMorin · · Score: 1

    I can view PDF with Chrome already, why should I have both installed?

    1. Re:If you have Chrome why having Acrobat Reader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly, Chrome doesn't perfectly support all PDFs yet. The usual gap is in forms. Another problem is that many forms created by software will specifically sabotage non-Adobe products. As an example: https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/files/idr/forms1/2015%201040%20fillable.pdf

    2. Re:If you have Chrome why having Acrobat Reader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some people require digital signatures on PDFs which requires adobe.
      Funny they don't really care WHAT you sign it with but do require it be signed...

    3. Re:If you have Chrome why having Acrobat Reader? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Because its unfair to Adobe if only Google and Microsoft are allowed to track your usage! You want to be fair don't you?

    4. Re:If you have Chrome why having Acrobat Reader? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      I find the built in PDF viewer in Chrome to not be that great, and the one in Firefox to be downright terrible.

      I use PDF X-change, but there's plenty of other options: Sumatra PDF, MuPDF , etc.

      The only reason I've used Adobe Reader recently was a stupid form that had scripting in it, that wouldn't work in any alternate viewer.

  8. Preferential treatment by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The extension is also Windows-only, meaning Mac and Linux Chrome users will not receive it.

    Why are Mac and Linux users treated better than Windows users? That's not fair!

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Preferential treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux users always seem to get better treatment on these type of issues.

    2. Re:Preferential treatment by crow · · Score: 1

      The Linux version hasn't been updated in years. It's the only 32-bit program left on my system.

    3. Re:Preferential treatment by juanillodgn · · Score: 1

      Why are Mac and Linux users threated better than Windows users? That's not fair!

      Fixed that for you

  9. Well, seems like adobe is streamlining it. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    Now instead of having to browse the internet until the PDF reader gets hit by one of its countless exploits and install the malware on your PC, now it comes with it integrated into a neat package.

  10. Already seen it by Marquis231 · · Score: 2

    I thought it was odd this morning when I logged onto my Windows 7 work PC that the first thing I saw upon opening Chrome was a dialogue box asking permission to install a new extension from Adobe that I hadn't asked for. I declined, of course. Now I see my suspicions that it was official spyware have been vindicated, surprise surprise.

  11. Chrome PDF Printing Bug by Paxtez · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it has a standard 'use Reader to open PDFs in browsers' option. Chrome will sometimes not print random elements from PDFs. They display fine, but when printing some parts are just blank. This may be useful for use and it might be an easier solution than 'save PDF to desktop, open in Adobe and print' or 'open in IE when you want to print'.

  12. Re:Russians did it! by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thank you for your input, Herr Drumpf.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  13. USE THIS by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.sumatrapdfreader.o...

    Small. Fast. Loads DjVu and some E-Reader formats as well. No spyware.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:USE THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also recommend Sumatra. Faster. Less invasive. Doesn't run in-PDF javascript. Actually nicer to use too. I uninstalled Adobe years ago and haven't looked back.

    2. Re:USE THIS by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I just wish people developing software would remember that printing is a thing, particularly for documents like PDFs. Printing from Sumatra seems to be measured in minutes-per-page rather than pages-per-minute.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:USE THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For professional pdf work (ie stuff meant to go on a 5000 lpi-capable sheetfed press), it's also poop, it has poor font support and inconsistencies in layering. Not that the internal pdf readers in FF or Chrome do any better. While everyone probably cheered around here (free embedded pdf readers yay!!), us professional printer support technicians were suddenly assaulted by clients and coworkers demanding to know why all of our proofs were broken.

    4. Re:USE THIS by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure browsers incorporating PDF readers is a recent amendment to Zawinski's Law.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:USE THIS by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      I've been using PDF-XChange viewer for some years now and I'm really happy with it.
      Is it too good to be true? Is someone going to come along and tell me it's stealing all the beer from my fridge?

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    6. Re:USE THIS by nnull · · Score: 1

      Though, I did enjoy Sumatra on Windows, the problem for me and others is that all these PDF viewers, either in linux or Windows, they don't have a lot of the nice features that Adobe Acrobat has that are just convenient to use (They literally suck). Automatically OCR a document, multipage viewing that adjusts nicely to your screen, combine PDFs or whatever documents into one PDF, scanning, all the nice tools for review and note taking, etc. I had to sacrifice a lot of this nice convenience for my employees who were used to this. But I'm willing to burn it all down if it means stopping them from spying on my industry.

    7. Re:USE THIS by trawg · · Score: 1

      I nearly didn't bother looking at this because you didn't include "open source" in its list of features (given how fucked so many PDF readers are in terms of security - and by that of course I mean Acrobat Reader - this is an important issue for me).

      But, it turns out it is actually open source: https://github.com/sumatrapdfr... (GPLv3).

  14. Re:Foxit instead by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Informative

    Foxit comes with malware which installs toolbars. It's worse than Adobe

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  15. what an evil scheme. by sheramil · · Score: 2

    "Members of the secret metadata trust.. we have Sheramil's Acrobat usage information right here! Let's see.. documentation for mom's smart tv... a pirate copy of Frank Herbert's 'Dune Encyclopedia'... uh... D.Gingery's book on metal lathes.. very well! How do we monetize this information?" *crickets*

    1. Re:what an evil scheme. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Has Gingery's book been released on PDF? I wasn't aware of that. Gingery is a small-press business and probably are hurt tremendously by pirates distributing PDF versions of their books.

      How will we bootstrap our early 20th century machine shops from scrap material and a charcoal forge after the apocalypse if Gingery's books aren't widely distributed, particularly in post-apoc. readable paper form?

    2. Re:what an evil scheme. by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never really understood this line of thinking, that if one is living an uninteresting, unimportant life they shouldn't care if they're being spayed upon? Privacy is only for people of interest. Everyone else is fair game? I thought it was the famous people who were exempt from having private lives. Personally I think that even if all you do is go home to an empty house and stare at the walls all day you should still do it without, frankly high-tech peeping toms. Buy you should be free to choose whatever you want.

    3. Re:what an evil scheme. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It's a web browser plugin, so it searches through all your browser cookies, and transfers that information. Scared now?

    4. Re:what an evil scheme. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There's lots of interesting stuff you can find out with spyware. Most people don't know how to uninstall apps, for example, so Adobe can see if they also have Sumatra or Foxit installed, i.e. who the competition is. Installed apps stats are also helpful when they want to slip their malware into other popular installers.

      They can collect data on how users react to user-hostile features and tune their abuse to get the revenue / annoying enough to use a different app ratio right. Even interaction data is really valuable. How do you think Microsoft knew to make the close button on the Windows 10 upgrade accept installation? Their telemetry told them that when users are unsure what to do or the option they want isn't presented, they try to close the window.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:what an evil scheme. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Members of the secret metadata trust.. we have Sheramil's Acrobat usage information right here! Let's see.. documentation for mom's smart tv... a pirate copy of Frank Herbert's 'Dune Encyclopedia'... uh... D.Gingery's book on metal lathes.. very well! How do we monetize this information?" *crickets*

      "Ah, screw it. We will just tell the government that he is planning to use his metalworking skills to turn a smart TV into a smuggling device for drugs(street name 'spice') and get a nice little reward from the government. Might as well make some money off of this."

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  16. Re:Foxit instead by MeanE · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sumatra is fast, light and crap free.

    https://www.sumatrapdfreader.o...

  17. Re:Foxit instead by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome also offers pretty good native PDF support, so why even bother having more software installed.

  18. But are users smart to rely on proprietary luck? by jbn-o · · Score: 2

    Chrome does that now, but Google could make Chrome behave differently and not ask, simply accept the new plugin (with its spying turned on by default) without prompting the user.

    Ultimately this allegation of "smarts" is not under the user's control, it's unsafe and a minor stroke of luck that things happened to work out the way they did for now. It doesn't strike me as smart to dismiss this as a settled matter, just as it was not smart for Microsoft Windows 10 users to believe that the OS privacy settings were being obeyed when they weren't.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  19. Re:Foxit instead by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    I don't have Chrome installed. Just SeaMonkey.

  20. Closing the barn door after the horses are out by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we have some perspective here? We're talking about Chrome people. Google. The masters of collecting data. If you use Chrome your data is no longer your own already. So what are you complaining about?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Closing the barn door after the horses are out by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Having faith or trust in one company does not mean I have trust in another. So far Google have not negatively impacted me with personal data collection.

      On the other hand all my passwords are leaked in an unsalted hash format in a breach of Adobe along with all my account information. Their products are also an incredibly open attack vector and a security threat. I have zero faith or trust in Adobe.

    2. Re: Closing the barn door after the horses are out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chrome only collects data if you want it to. Uncheck all the options under privacy and it's just another browser. Are you gonna complain that it sends every address you visit to Google? It's just the search as you type address bar doing what it's supposed to. Almost every modern browser has it and it can be disabled. Or you can change your search engine to DuckDuckGo or whatever.

      You can't have all this functionaliy without sending data somewhere.

  21. Re:Foxit instead by ckatko · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least throw a damn citation out.

    Only thing I can see is version 6.1.4 (2014) of FoxIt had malware. But it was removed afterward because of user outcry.

    HOWEVER, equally or more dangerous I've noticed:

    >In July 2014, the Internet Storm Center reported that the mobile version for iPhone was transmitting unencrypted telemetry and other data to remote servers located in China despite users attempting to opt out of such data collection.[13]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  22. So by rossdee · · Score: 1

    What if you don't have Chrome installed?

    Say has anybody used the Foxit reader? How compatible is it?

    1. Re:So by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Foxit collects a whole different range of 'anonymous' data and sends that to entirely different organisations. In that sense, it fulfills the same role, but is entirely incompatible.

  23. Redundant even if it wasn't underhanded by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    This extension allows users to save any web page they're on as a PDF file and share it or download it to disk.

    Chrome has had these capabilities built-in for years. Go to the Print window and choose "Save as PDF".

    1. Re:Redundant even if it wasn't underhanded by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      That is a way smarter way to create PDFs than this stupid plug-in. In fact, many PDF programs will create a virtual printer that will accept anything sent to it and turn it into a PDF.

  24. You can turn of the "feature" that sends data by Streetlight · · Score: 1, Informative

    In the Chrome browser, just got to your extensions, find the Adobe extension, click on options and uncheck the box about sending info to Adobe. You can also disable the extension or click on the trash can to remove it. Hopefully one of these options will be useful to everyone unless Adobe is really sneaky and even if one takes the drastic measure of removing the extension there's enough left on your system to do the reporting work.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  25. Re:Foxit instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just use good, old US crapware!

  26. PII does not equal personal data by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 1

    PII is an American legal term - in the US there is hardly any privacy on the internet. US companies are free to collect IP addresses for US citizens

    In the EU and relating to EU citizens, "personal data" is any data that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. An IP address does constitute "personal data" under EU law, if there is a legal means to find out who the IP address belongs to. See
    http://www.whitecase.com/publi... for details.

    --
    Moritz
  27. The Acrobat Reader abomination by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    "The extension is also Windows-only, meaning Mac and Linux Chrome users will not receive it. "

    Which is good, because if you use Mac you don't need Acrobat in the first place. In fact, the built-in PDF reader includes a number of of the editing features that Adobe users have to pay for the "Pro" edition to get.

  28. Re:Foxit instead by cycler · · Score: 1

    No

    Chrome's built in PDF viewer is useless for forms or others obscure scanned PDFs.

    I have had to help administrations multiple times and since Chrome later not supporting Reader extensions I had to instruct them to download the PDF and THEN open them in Adobe Reader (still using the non-DC version)

    Granted there are problems with Adobe Reader but to make it that difficult to launch an external program to read PDFs..............
    (And not the only shenanigans that Chrome has pulled)

    /C

  29. "Silently installs"??? by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    Chrome prompts for permission before an extension can install and lists what the extension is requesting access to.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  30. Got'm by Flafferay · · Score: 1

    Thankfully, my chrome gave me the ole heads up. But, sketchy for Adobe to think this was a good idea. Then again, they do try to install McAfee all the time. Should have seen this coming.

  31. So....it was legitimate. by DewDude · · Score: 1

    I hit block when Chrome told me because I assumed it was malicious because..you know....I didn't ask anything to install it.

  32. Re:Foxit instead by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Works fine with most forms in my experience. The only issue I've had with it are maps which ight be some sort of vector graphics.

  33. Not java, flash player by Skulthur · · Score: 1

    Not java but it was (is?) installed with flash player if you don't uncheck that box FROM THE DOWNLOAD PAGE (it do not ask if you want it when installing - it just install chrome without asking). WTF? Normal google/adobe behavior I guess but I found it pretty dirty from them.

    1. Re:Not java, flash player by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Again, no, it doesn't. Here is a screenshot from the flash download page from 30 seconds ago. It installs some McAfee and Intel shit. No Google Chrome. Never has, never will.

    2. Re:Not java, flash player by Skulthur · · Score: 1

      Never said they still did. See this post https://forums.adobe.com/threa... from 2013. It did install just like I said (in 2013). So it has, do not anymore, and I can't speak for the future but it would not suprise me if they do it again.

  34. Re:Foxit instead by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I just discovered Sumatra a couple days ago. Was astonished how fast it is. But how would one use it as a browser plug-in?

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  35. Do Adobe still make a PDF reader? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    It's been years since I allowed one to be installed on any machine under my control. Because, on the machines not under my control, the damned thing sucked so many processor cycles and crashed so often that ... well, why would you use Adobe to read PDFs?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"