Slashdot Log In
Homemade PDF Patch Beats Adobe By Two Weeks
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 23, 2009 07:54 PM
from the p-d-q dept.
from the p-d-q dept.
CWmike writes "Sourcefire security researcher Lurene Grenier has published a home-brewed patch for the critical Adobe Reader vulnerability that hackers are exploiting in the wild using malicious PDF files, beating Adobe Systems Inc. to the punch by more than two weeks. Grenier posted the patch on Sunday with the caveats that it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees. Also, PhishLabs has created a batch file that resets a Windows registry key to de-fang the hack by disabling JavaScript in Adobe Reader 9.0, giving administrators a way to automate the process."
Related Stories
[+]
Adobe Flaw Heightens Risk of Malicious PDFs 193 comments
snydeq writes "Security companies warn of a new flaw in version 9 of Adobe Reader and Acrobat that could compromise PCs merely by the opening of a malicious PDF. Although attacks are not yet widespread, hackers are exploiting the flaw in the wild, gaining control of computers via buffer overflow conditions triggered by the opening of specially crafted PDFs." Adobe is calling the flaw "critical" and says a patch for Reader 9 and Acrobat 9 will be released by March 11.
[+]
Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability 70 comments
thethibs writes "eWeek is reporting that just as everyone is buzzing about the latest Adobe vulnerability, someone poisoned ads hosted by Ziff-Davis with an older Adobe exploit (affecting versions 8.12 and earlier, and long since patched). Z-D fixed the problem less than 24 hours after its first appearance. The interesting bit of this is that a bunch of people probably got hit with the old Trojan when they browsed to a story about the new one."
[+]
Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript 211 comments
CWmike writes "Adobe Systems has acknowledged that all versions of its Adobe Reader, including editions for Windows, the Mac and Linux, contain at least one, and possibly two, critical vulnerabilities. 'All currently supported shipping versions of Adobe Reader and Acrobat, [Versions] 9.1, 8.1.4 and 7.1.1 and earlier, are vulnerable to this issue,' said Adobe's David Lenoe said in a blog entry yesterday. He was referring to a bug in Adobe's implementation of JavaScript that went public early Tuesday. A "Bugtraq ID," or BID number has been assigned to a second JavaScript vulnerability in Adobe's Reader. Proof-of-concept attack code for both bugs has already been published on the Web. Adobe said it will patch Reader and Acrobat, but Lenoe offered no timetable for the fixes. In lieu of a patch, Lenoe recommended that users disable JavaScript in the apps. Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security, said of the suggestion in lieu of patches, 'Unfortunately, for Adobe, disabling JavaScript is a broken record, [and] similar to what we've seen in the past with Microsoft on ActiveX bugs.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Registry hack (Score:5, Interesting)
We figured that one out in about five minutes. Wrote a quick group policy file and moved on to the next problem.
Open source "more secure" than closed source? (Score:3)
So is this "user supplied" PDF fix an example of how Open Source is More Secure than Closed Source?
OSS users supplied a fix in less than a day, whereas a closed source programmer in some cubicle somewhere will take weeks to do the same. Maybe this would be a fine example to present to the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress, in order to convince them that open source is the best path to follow.
Re:Registry hack (Score:5, Informative)
For myself I just used the REG.exe located inside the %system32% folder. in your logon script (assuming you have one), just add in the lines
REG add "HKCU\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\JSPrefs" /v bConsoleOpen /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
REG add "HKCU\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\JSPrefs" /v bEnableGlobalSecurity /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
REG add "HKCU\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\JSPrefs" /v bEnableJS /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
REG add "HKCU\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\JSPrefs" /v bEnableMenuItems /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
YMMV. REG.exe is not included on Windows 2000. Because this applies to the current user registry there should be no permissions issue. And make sure your path does include the system32 directory as by default.
Parent
Feature Request (Score:5, Insightful)
When loading a PDF, if Reader sees there's JavaScript that wants to run, Reader pops up a dialog along the lines of, "Hey, this file contains executable code which is, y'know, kind of contrary to the whole concept of a 'document'. Do you want to allow the code to run? [Yes] [[Hell, No]]"
This is the cheesy but mostly effective stopgap solution Microsoft adopted when Word became an infection vector for macro viruses. Unless Microsoft got a patent on it, I don't see any reason why Adobe couldn't also use the same approach.
Schwab
Re:Feature Request (Score:5, Insightful)
When loading a PDF, if Reader sees there's JavaScript that wants to run, Reader pops up a dialog along the lines of, "Hey, this file contains executable code which is, y'know, kind of contrary to the whole concept of a 'document'. Do you want to allow the code to run? [Yes] [[Hell, No]]"
Do you think that the average user will read anything before clicking "Yes"?
Parent
Re:Feature Request (Score:4, Funny)
How about: "Do you want to prevent the execution of possibly malicious code in this .PDF file?" [Yes][No].
If they select No, the next dialog is: "Fine. I've just opened all the ports on the computer, deleted the last 10 documents you opened up, and loaded up a couple trojans. Are you sure you want to run the executable code in this PDF file now?" [Yes][No].
This way, the user won't be taught to always select the same confirmation box all the time.
Parent
Re:Feature Request (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Feature Request (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that the average user will read anything before clicking "Yes"?
...of course they won't, which is why you turn it around to "Hey, this file contains executable code which is, y'know, kind of contrary to the whole concept of a 'document'. Do you want to block execution of this code? [Yes][No, I like to live dangerously]".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is why we need to get away from labeling dialog box buttons "Yes", "No", "Cancel", etc. We can label them anything we want, so why not be descriptive? Try "Safe", "Unsafe", "Really Stupid", "Don't click this -- ever!"
The same applies to the save dialogs. I like how OO.org 3.0 handles the "Do you want to save?" dialog when closing the program: The buttons are labeled "Save", "Discard", and "Cancel". Of course, "Cancel" could be better described as "Return to Program."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you opt not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, why would one want another programming language embedded in a programming language? Postscript already can do all you would want. It is a bit hairy programming, but it can be done (see f.x. http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/foster/postscript.html [uq.edu.au]). The best way to mitigate security issues with embedded code is to eliminate the execution. That is, until some one writes a javascript interpreter in postscript.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to have to disagree...
Allowing some scripting in a document is great. For example, I'm writing a math textbook [wordpress.com]. If PDF-javascript had a FOSS implementation, I'd use it to make interactive quizzes and questions in it. Sadly, while LaTeX has a package to do this, there is no support.
Before someone goes and says that I shouldn't be using a PDF in this case, please think. I'm writing a large textbook with lots of graphics. I want it to be in a single file so that its easily available to the technical
Re:Feature Request (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe did add this dialog -- but it only appears if you have disabled Javascript! (Which you can do with Edit / Preferences, no need for the registry hack.)
Here's the exact dialog:
? This document contains JavaScripts. Do you want to enable JavaScripts from now on? The document may not behave correctly if they're disabled.
[ ] Don't show this message again until this document is reopened
[[Yes]] [[No]]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Feature request: a NoScript equivalent for Acrobat Reader.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or just make google open all your pdfs so that you aren't forced too even if its ugly its fast and secure.
JavaScript?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, JavaScript? In a PDF file? Why would you do that?
Re:JavaScript?! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:JavaScript?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:JavaScript?! (Score:5, Funny)
Then I quit drinking and realized Excel with tweaked permissions was far better suited to the task. It wasn't as smooth looking but it was easier for my staff to update.
Parent
what's wrong with forms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon my ignorance, but exactly what other format should one use if one wants to use forms?
In my place of work, a large group of individuals each needs to fill out an annual form. It contains some short-answer questions, and a few that requires a few paragraphs to answer. In the past, they have used... wait for it... Word. Yes, I was forced to boot up Word once a year, to fill out this form. You should see the completely disastrous document that results.
For that reason, I always wished our administrators would have figured out pdf forms. You don't "edit" them, as you say; you fill them in. While there are many complaints to make about Adobe, I don't see the problem with pdf forms. Am I missing something?
Parent
Re:what's wrong with forms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
JavaScript in PDF a Bad Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
JavaScript in PDFs is, and always has been, a bad idea. I started disabling it years ago when it first showed up, and am continually frustrated that it is present, let alone enabled by default. How many PDF exploits have relied on JavaScript? I haven't been counting, but it sure seems like most of the vulnerabilities are either through JavaScript or made much easier to exploit by its presence.
Someone is doubtless going to say that JavaScript is critical to PDFs as a helper for filling in forms. OK, whatever
Here's how you turn out a patch *real* fast. (Score:5, Insightful)
You skip all testing. Just the sort of thing I want to install in my system.
Re:Here's how you turn out a patch *real* fast. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Here's how you turn out a patch *real* fast. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make sure you don't let it install that obnoxious ask.com browser bar (in IE and Firefox). I made the mistake of including it in a slipstreamed xp disk and the silent installer took all defaults (browser bar and all).
Parent
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
You mean an individual who doesn't have a business to protect or any customers is able to come up with an un-QA'd version faster than the company that produced the product. Amazing!
Patch? (Score:2, Interesting)
Articles reading the future? (Score:5, Funny)
What i find more interesting is how slashdot is now able to tell the future!
The article boldly claims that something released yesterday has arrived two weeks before the official patch. Now, i know it's possible that the two weeks was taken from Adobe's projected patch fix date, but projections and fact are still different, and journalistic integrity requires a writer in this situation to indicate directly that this two weeks is not actually fact, as we couldn't know that yet. The headline is an outright lie, as far as i can tell, as it relies on future events being a certain way.
Can we not have articles started with lies on slashdot from now on? Maybe keep the lies towards the end?
-Taylor
There's a simple reason for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
As anyone who has developed complex software with a large installed userbase can attest to, you /cannot/ simply slap together a fix and push it out to millions of people.
Even the simplest one line code change change requires extensive (if targeted) testing when you operate on that scale - the consequences of an "oops" that could result from a hasty fix could easily get far worse than the original issue.
Re:There's a simple reason for that. (Score:4, Insightful)
- the consequences of an "oops" that could result from a hasty fix could easily get far worse than the original issue.
Do you really believe that? I appreciate the need for caution and measured risk taking before releasing new code, but taking _weeks_ to test a reg hack/kill switch just tells me that a company isn't taking their defects very seriously. I'd be much more forgiving of a company that screwed up a patch than one that sat on it until it was too late.
Parent
It's been Two Weeks since you made the patch ... (Score:5, Funny)
Lurene Grenier has published a home-brewed patch for the critical Adobe Reader vulnerability ... beating Adobe Systems Inc. to the punch by more than two weeks.
What the fuck Adobe? What did you do for those extra two weeks?
it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees.
Oh ... I guess you were trying to make it work on all systems, and checking to make sure that it didn't royally fuck up the user's computer, or introduce another, potentially more serious vulnerability.
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
"caveats that it applies only to the Windows version of Adobe Reader 9.0 and comes with no guarantees."
My boss will be pleased. I can push all my releases up at LEAST two weeks earlier now by adding this caveat on to all of my code. Thanks, Geritol.
Why doesn't anyone think javascript is useful? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to make slides for talks using LaTeX. There are great ways to include animations directly in the pdf that use javascript. I always had far less trouble getting my animations to play than other people at conferences I went to because acrobat reader was all I needed and it is nearly always there. And for the record, the animations were things I really needed since they showed output from simulations.
I've also seen lots of forms that do some math or validation. How do people think that happens?
Again, I think we need to be very careful about executable code but that doesn't mean there are no possible good uses for it.
Re:Why doesn't anyone think javascript is useful? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand the overwhelmingly negative reaction to javascript in pdf files.
Please read the 10 immutable laws of security [microsoft.com]. The one you're looking for is the first one on the list:
"If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore."
Is that referring to Bill Gates?
Re:Why doesn't anyone think javascript is useful? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not sure I understand the overwhelmingly negative reaction to javascript in pdf files.
...
There are great ways to include animations directly in the pdf that use javascript.
Hmm.... I think I see a connection here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like the way Apple approaches that problem in their Quartz Composer tool. Basically you have JavaScript for all types of funky validations, requests and calculations you would like to do but the 'vulnerable' classes that would allow reading/writing local files, networking or creating annoying popups have been removed.
A better patch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you for letting the Slashdot community know what you find offensive... is this because you think it's interesting, or because you have no friends to talk with?
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
I'll go for the secret third option, "because she's a feminist". Letting the world know what they find offensive is practically the feminists' national sport. Rather, it would be if they had their own country. And by God, I wish they did.
Parent
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That is NOT funny.
Parent
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
A: Four. One to change the lightbulb, three to form a support group.
But really, it's a trick question because feminists can't change anything.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unrelated to the feminist jokes, but related to lightbulbs:
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.
Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.
Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
Seven more to point out spelling/grammatical errors in posts about changing light bulbs.
Five to flame the spell checkers.
Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.
Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another six to condemn those
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you should really be careful. I don't think you realize who you're talking to. [xkcd.com]
Posting AC is only going to keep you safe for so long.
That also goes for everyone who modded her down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your grandchildren are not likely to be browsing Slashdot. Furthermore, taking offense to something that is very clearly tongue-in-cheek is not befitting of someone of your age.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you're right. It's terrible when people use an apostrophe when they mean "your".
Parent
Reply: Adobe to Lurene Grenier (Score:5, Funny)
Adobe to Lurene Grenier: You decompiled Acrobat in some way to create this fix, in violation of click-through license and DMCA (not to mention making us look incompetent.) We're suing you and we're going to make sure your government put you away in a pound-you-in-the-ass prison for a long long time.
Parent