Re:Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
by mediocrejoker on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @11:57AM
(#17457906)
I could be wrong but I think technically a PDF exploit only affects a single viewer program, like Acrobat on windows, right?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
by davidsong on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @12:14PM
(#17458006)
Well yes, and in this case we're talking files that contain an exploit for a version of Acrobat from 2006 or so and an infection vector that only works on Windows XP, and connects to a botnet that is either long dead or now an NSA/CIA asset.
But Windows Defender quite rightly still quarantines the file.
Re:Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
by heathl on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @12:29PM
(#17458086)
It would depend on the exploit. For a simple example, an exploit that was a result of a flaw in the file specification could result in it being cross platform.
It's going to be rarer to find something of that scope, maybe even to the point of you being effectively right.
Re:Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
by davidsong on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @12:37PM
(#17458139)
Also dodgy files can contain multiple exploits, potentially for different platforms. Problem here from the malicious actor's point of view is that each vector for attack is also a vector for detection, so rather than a cesspool of exploits it makes more sense to use single new and mostly unknown exploit that targets software used by the greatest number of victims.
Re:Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
by _cereal on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @12:42PM
(#17458160)
It depends on the exploit and on the reader. If, for example, the reader supports javascript then it can be attacked, apart from other weaknesses. Chrome on Linux executes javascript in PDF, while Firefox does not.
Here is an example file: https://we.tl/q90gXERGmx