Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[Flash]

I can't tell from this article if the exploit only works on Adobe pdf readers for Windows.

[Pizzasgood]

It theoretically works in Linux. It depends on the PDF viewer. From what I understand, most Linux PDF viewers don't support the particular feature that was used. But there is no reason why they couldn't.

Of course, a PDF that was designed to attack a Windows machine would generally be harmless on a Linux machine, and vice versa.


What I don't understand is why PDF even has that feature. It's retarded. Documents don't need to be able to execute commands.

Thanks for posting this, by the way. In my network security class we have to do a number of lab additions where we add a section to the lab assignments. (It's "optional", but required for an A). We've been having bad luck making things work on the lab machines lately. I have a good feeling about this one though. (And we only need this last addition.)

[DMcCunney]

[8-bit]

[Pizzasgood]

My point is that most documents don't need to be active, so they could use a static format. An active format with a different extension could be used by only the "documents" that actually need it. That way people would be naturally more paranoid, because before they even click on the file, they would see the icon (and maybe extension) and say, "Wait, that's one of them funny ones. Why does it need to be funny? What's it up to? Do I trust them?"

There should not be a requirement to trust the average document. It is just a document. The only threats it should pose are buffer overflows and boredom. Maybe epileptic seizures.

[Flash]

[DMcCunney]