Slashdot Log In
Critical Vulnerability In Adobe Reader
Posted by
timothy
on Wednesday November 05, @04:32PM
from the see-attachment dept.
from the see-attachment dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Core Security Technologies issued an advisory disclosing a vulnerability that could affect millions using Adobe's Reader PDF file viewing software. Engineers from CoreLabs determined that Adobe Reader could be exploited to gain access to vulnerable systems via the use of a specially crafted PDF file with malicious JavaScript content. Successful exploitation of the vulnerability requires that users open a maliciously crafted PDF file, thereby allowing attackers to gain access to vulnerable systems and assume the privileges of a user running Acrobat Reader."
Related Stories
[+]
Adobe Confirms Unpatched PDF Backdoor 170 comments
50Mat writes "Adobe has fessed up to a dangerous code execution vulnerability affecting software programs installed on millions of Windows machines. The flaw, publicly disclosed more than three weeks ago, could allow hackers to use rigged PDF files to take control of Window XP computers with Internet Explorer 7 installed. It affects Adobe Reader, Adobe Acrobat Standard, Professional and Elements and Adobe Acrobat 3D."
[+]
PDF Exploits On the Rise 183 comments
An anonymous reader writes "According to the TrustedSource Blog, malware authors increasingly target PDF files as an infection vector. Keep your browser plugins updated. From the article: 'The Portable Document Format (PDF) is one of the file formats of choice commonly used in today's enterprises, since it's widely deployed across different operating systems. But on a down-side this format has also known vulnerabilites which are exploited in the wild. Secure Computing's Anti-Malware Research Labs spotted a new and yet unknown exploit toolkit which exclusively targets Adobe's PDF format.'"
Firehose:Critical Vulnerability in Adobe Reader by Anonymous Coward
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.
For the uninformed: (Score:5, Informative)
Foxit [foxitsoftware.com] FTW
Reply to This
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Informative)
While investigating the feasibility of exploiting a vulnerability previously disclosed in Foxit Reader (CVE-2008-1104), a CoreLabs researcher found that Adobe Reader was affected by the same bug.
Foxit users: don't panic. Though Foxit Reader v2.3 build 2825 is vulnerable, 2.3 builds 2912 and later are patched. Build 3309 is the current version available for download.
...with the privileges of a user running the Adobe Reader application.
Which strongly implies that those affected will be Windows users with Administrator access.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Insightful)
...with the privileges of a user running the Adobe Reader application.
Which strongly implies that those affected will be Windows users with Administrator access.
It seems fair to worry even if you aren't running as admin. If a trojan PDF can run arbitrary code with privileges of the user running Adobe Reader, that's still enough to screw with that user's documents even if the user isn't an admin.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:4, Informative)
if you rtfa, you would note that the current build of adobe reader isn't vulnerable either.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Informative)
Another option for PDF reading on Windows is Sumatra PDF [kowalczyk.info] (if you prefer open-source).
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Informative)
That might work on some or most files, but there still is no replacement for Acrobat.
True, but we're getting closer. OpenOffice 3 now has a PDF Import [openoffice.org] extension, and of course for Windows there's PDFCreator [sourceforge.net] (Gnome/KDE and OS X natively support printing to PDF).
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Funny)
I know you're trying to look smart but export and import aren't the same thing.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but you can have multiple PDF readers installed. And in terms of security, it's usually best to use the simplest application that will work.
So basically you could use FoxIt or Sumatra PDF to open most PDFs. And then for the rare one that uses some advanced stuff, you can fire up Acrobat. The fact is that most of the stuff that Acrobat supports that other PDF readers don't involves some kind of scripting. And really you shouldn't be running any scripts (even those that are, in principle, sandboxed) unless you have reason to trust them.
So a sensible strategy would seem to be that you open 99% of PDFs with a simpler reader, and only use Acrobat on the few that really need it, and only if the source of the PDF is trustworthy in your estimation.
(Yeah, I know... it's a bit of a pain to have multiple programs that do the same thing. In principle you "shouldn't have to" in the sense that your PDF reader should be secure. But in reality it seems like a reasonable precaution.)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it makes good sense to have a different app depending on what you need done. For instance, reading articles in PDF in Preview or Acrobat is a pain, and I'll use Skim.app [sourceforge.net] for those.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:4, Insightful)
The real solution is to open 100% of PDFs in a simpler reader, and refuse to tolerate PDFs that require scripting.
Really, there's no good reason for a document viewer to have the bloat of Acrobat, and we shouldn't encourage Adobe by doing what they want.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? I create PDFs all the time, and don't own a copy of Acrobat. I use pdftex and inkscape, but there's scads of other software that can do it, e.g., Scribus if you want GUI desktop publishing. This is all on linux, but there's tons of PDF-creating software on Windows as well.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Informative)
there's tons of PDF-creating software on Windows as well.
PDFCreator from sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ [sourceforge.net]
It's a Windows printer that prints out your documents as PDFs.
It's that easy.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:For the uninformed: (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Single-purpose tools are good (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Adobe Reader come with a "safe mode" with just plain old PDF enabled?
If not, it should.
Reply to This
Re:Single-purpose tools are good (Score:5, Insightful)
Your remark leads to the general question: what business does a document viewer have trying to execute embedded Javascript scripts? a PDF file is essentially a PostScript file, so its content is supposed to be interpreted as a page description and nothing more.
This is reminiscent of Microsoft's "executable" .DOC files that was used to spread viruses around years ago. This is what you get when you try to make a tool too clever for its own good.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Single-purpose tools are good (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Single-purpose tools are good (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, JavaScript is pointless in a PDF viewer and should be disabled, but it is worth noting that PostScript itself is a programming language. It has conditionals, functions, loops, etc. I myslef once hand-coded a PostScript program to draw a high-res graph of a particular function for a class back in college. This 1K file basically owned the imagesetter in the print lab for about 45 minutes while it rendered at 1200 dpi.
If I recall correctly, there were even a couple of postscript exploits back in the 1990s that could "brick" Apple LaserWrtiers.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Single-purpose tools are good (Score:5, Informative)
To disable js, go to Edit, Preferences, JavaScript, and uncheck "Enable Acrobat JavaScript".
Even if the js-related security bugs are fixed, it's still a privacy issue, because js in a pdf file can be used to track who's reading a particular document.
Personally, when I see that a piece of software has a long history of security problems, I take that as my cue to remove it from my system. I don't really care that they keep fixing the bugs. The fact that it has this history demonstrates that the software wasn't written with the correct attention to security, and it's likely to have more such problems in the future.
If you're running Linux, xpdf starts up extremely fast, and that's why I use it as my pdf plugin in Firefox. If you want something a little more modern, try evince.
People have posted saying that on Windows, you should switch to Foxit, but the article says that the security flaw was found first in Foxit, and only later in Adobe Reader. I actually tried to get the science division at the community college where I teach to switch to putting Foxit on machines in the student labs as the default pdf plugin. However, when the faculty were testing it, they found that it was not correctly displaying some of the pdfs they were using.
Reply to This
Parent
Which again... (Score:5, Insightful)
...begs the question "Why Does Adobe Reader Need Javascript"??
Reply to This
Re:Which again... (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Which again... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are part of the problem.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:An alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
Web page?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Which again... (Score:5, Informative)
It raises the question, godsdamnit. Here's what "begging the question" actually means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [wikipedia.org]
Reply to This
Parent
You can have it, hackers (Score:5, Funny)
Successful exploitation of the vulnerability requires that users open a maliciously crafted PDF file, thereby allowing attackers to gain access to vulnerable systems and assume the privileges of a user running Acrobat Reader.
The main privileges being the privilege of waiting thirty seconds to view text, followed closely by the privilege of a crashed web browser.
Reply to This
Miserable Retards (Score:5, Insightful)
When I install a new piece of software, the first place I go is to the preferences panel to see if there are any stupid/broken settings that need to be fixed (or, too often, fixed again after an upgrade). I can't remember which version it originally showed up in, but when I saw the checkbox for JavaScript in Acrobat Reader, my jaw hit the floor.
"Are you people fscking morons? Did you learn nothing from the exploits and problems caused by JavaScript in Web browsers? Hell, forget Web browsers; Microsoft Word became a virus/trojan platform because the Special-Needs Children who apparently design all their software thought it would be tEh k00l to embed macros in what is fundamentally a static document."
Every time some would-be clever person adds a macro language or other executable logic to a document format, the result is "unexpected" worms, viruses, and security breaches. Every God-damned time.
This is not an honest mistake. This is negligent engineering, and someone needs to lose a lot of money over it before the lesson sinks in.
Schwab
Reply to This