Does Acrobat 7.x corrupt disk drives the way CS2 versions of other Adobe products do?
Mxsmanic
4.x to Acrobat 7.0.7 on Windows. I note the presence of the
mysterious Adobelm_Cleanup.0001 and Adobelmsvc.exe services in the
system. Does this mean that the Acrobat installer has secretly
written to my disk drive without telling me, in the same rootkit-style
way that CS products do?
Also, I now have Acrobat 4.x and Acrobat 7.x both installed on the
machine and running independently. Am I correct in assuming that I
can uninstall 4.x once I've tested everything out without breaking
anything on the machine? I purchases Acrobat 7.x as an upgrade, but I
don't know how it verifies the presence of 4.x (since 4.x was already
on the machine, I guess it probably took note of its presence--but if
I ever need to reinstall ...).
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Dov Isaacs
matter, no other Adobe application does anything to corrupt your disk
drive. And Adobe applies no "rootkits" to your system. Where did you
get that misinformation from? The filenames you cite are related to
product activation, but said product activation does not use any
"rootkit" nor does it corrupt your disk. You may not "like" product
activation, but please don't distort what is actually done with it.
(2) Adobe strongly recommends that you not attempt to have multiple
versions of Acrobat and/or any combinations of Adobe Acrobat and Adobe
Reader concurrently installed. Although it is physically possible to do
this, the fact is that because they have interactions with browsers,
printer ports, and PostScript driver plug-ins, mulitple versions can
and will interfere with each other. Usually, but not always, the last
software installed "wins" so to speak. To "clean" your system, I would
first de-activate Acrobat 7, uninstall Acrobat 7, uninstall Acrobat4,
uninstall any and all versions of "Reader" and then reinstall and
reactivate Acrobat 7.
- Dov
Mxsmanic
> (1) Adobe does nothing to "corrupt your disk drive" and for that
> matter, no other Adobe application does anything to corrupt your disk
> drive. And Adobe applies no "rootkits" to your system. Where did you
> get that misinformation from?
It's not misinformation. Adobe CS products use a variation of the
Macrovision SafeCast system, which does direct physical writes to
specific sectors on your hard drive, bypassing the security of Windows
and compromising system security. I believe it writes directly to
physical sector 32, which nobody is supposed to touch (not even
Adobe).
> The filenames you cite are related to
> product activation, but said product activation does not use any
> "rootkit" nor does it corrupt your disk.
See above. This was all discussed when the first rootkit versions of
Adobe products came out (CS versions for Windows), but I guess people
have short memories, or they don't care what software does behind
their backs.
> You may not "like" product activation, but please don't distort
> what is actually done with it.
If it doesn't work as above, then describe exactly what it is doing.
> (2) Adobe strongly recommends that you not attempt to have multiple
> versions of Acrobat and/or any combinations of Adobe Acrobat and Adobe
> Reader concurrently installed. Although it is physically possible to do
> this, the fact is that because they have interactions with browsers,
> printer ports, and PostScript driver plug-ins, mulitple versions can
> and will interfere with each other. Usually, but not always, the last
> software installed "wins" so to speak. To "clean" your system, I would
> first de-activate Acrobat 7, uninstall Acrobat 7, uninstall Acrobat4,
> uninstall any and all versions of "Reader" and then reinstall and
> reactivate Acrobat 7.
Acrobat said nothing about this at installation time, and in fact the
EULA says that I can keep both versions on the machine while I
transition from one to the other.
I need to know _specifically_ what will interfere with what; I cannot
just install and deinstall in some helter-skelter way on the
assumption that everything will turn out right. The system seems
stable now, but I am wondering if it will remain so if I remove
Acrobat 4.x.
Note that the products are installed into separate directories on the
system.
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not misinformation. Adobe CS products use a variation of the
> Macrovision SafeCast system, which does direct physical writes to
> specific sectors on your hard drive, bypassing the security of Windows
> and compromising system security. I believe it writes directly to
> physical sector 32, which nobody is supposed to touch (not even
> Adobe).
It's been demonstrated on the Mac that it writes to system sound files.
--
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain.
Mxsmanic
> It's been demonstrated on the Mac that it writes to system sound files.
Why would it write to system sound files? That's even weirder than
installing a rootkit.
I was under the impression that disks were corrupted only in Windows
versions.
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would it write to system sound files? That's even weirder than
> installing a rootkit.
Indeed.
Dov Isaacs
No "rootkit" has ever been installed by Adobe software. Yes, the
activation facility of Adobe's software, similar to that of Microsoft
and other software vendors, does put information in otherwise
non-accessible disk sectors, but that (a) is not what a "rootkit" is
(you obviously don't know what a rootkit is -- the recent Sony episode
was a "rootkit" -- something very different than what the activation
software does) and (b) is not "corrupting" your disk. What function of
your disk system no longer properly functions and is "corrupted?" The
only disk function that we found was problematic with regards to the
product activation feature of Acrobat 7 and application in Photoshop 8
and subsequently in the applications of Creative Suite 2 was with
relationship to a bug in a limited number of RAID disk systems. We have
worked with any users affected to bypass this problem and with the
driver writers to get the problem resolved.
Obviously, Adobe isn't going to publicly document every aspect of its
activation mechanism. Doing that would obviously make that mechanism
meaningless. We're not stupid!
You are correct that the EULA certainly does not prohibit concurrent
installation of multiple versions of Acrobat and/or Reader on a single
system. It isn't a legal issue. It is a practical issue. My advice to
you, based on dealing with THOUSANDS of Acrobat users and their
problems is not to attempt this. It really doesn't buy you any
functionality or features (Acrobat 7 is much improved both in
functionality, quality, stability, and performance over Acrobat 4).
Having both installed may result in improper operation of the AdobePDF
PostScript printer driver instance, PDFMaker for Office, and/or
possibly the ability to deal with PDF files in browser windows. If you
remove Acrobat 4, you may very likely find your Acrobat 7 installation
corrupted. Follow the directions I provided to you to deactivate 7,
uninstall 7, uninstall 4, reinstall 7, and reactivate.
- Dov (for Adobe Systems Incorporated!)
Mxsmanic
> No "rootkit" has ever been installed by Adobe software. Yes, the
> activation facility of Adobe's software, similar to that of Microsoft
> and other software vendors, does put information in otherwise
> non-accessible disk sectors, but that (a) is not what a "rootkit" is ...
That's exactly what a rootkit is. A rootkit bypasses or replaces the
operating system. Any software that is writing directly to the disk
outside the filesystems supported by the OS is replacing the OS, and
is therefore a rootkit.
> ... and (b) is not "corrupting" your disk.
I may need the sector that the Adobe activation software is
corrupting.
> What function of your disk system no longer properly functions
> and is "corrupted?"
The part that limits disk access to trusted parts of the OS kernel,
which Adobe has brazenly, irresponsibly, deliberately, and negligently
bypassed.
> The only disk function that we found was problematic with regards to the
> product activation feature of Acrobat 7 and application in Photoshop 8
> and subsequently in the applications of Creative Suite 2 was with
> relationship to a bug in a limited number of RAID disk systems. We have
> worked with any users affected to bypass this problem and with the
> driver writers to get the problem resolved.
>
> Obviously, Adobe isn't going to publicly document every aspect of its
> activation mechanism. Doing that would obviously make that mechanism
> meaningless. We're not stupid!
I already know that it corrupts disk sectors outside the filesystem;
that's stupid enough. Does Adobe have no ethics at all?
> You are correct that the EULA certainly does not prohibit concurrent
> installation of multiple versions of Acrobat and/or Reader on a single
> system. It isn't a legal issue. It is a practical issue. My advice to
> you, based on dealing with THOUSANDS of Acrobat users and their
> problems is not to attempt this. It really doesn't buy you any
> functionality or features (Acrobat 7 is much improved both in
> functionality, quality, stability, and performance over Acrobat 4).
Yes, Acrobat 7 can transmit viruses much more easily, from what I've
seen. I've tried to turn off as much as possible, but perhaps Adobe
isn't documenting all of that, either.
> Having both installed may result in improper operation of the AdobePDF
> PostScript printer driver instance, PDFMaker for Office, and/or
> possibly the ability to deal with PDF files in browser windows. If you
> remove Acrobat 4, you may very likely find your Acrobat 7 installation
> corrupted. Follow the directions I provided to you to deactivate 7,
> uninstall 7, uninstall 4, reinstall 7, and reactivate.
It seems to be working now; given what Adobe has done to my disk
drive, perhaps I would be better off leaving things as-is.
rhys
wrote:
>It seems to be working now; given what Adobe has done to my disk
>drive, perhaps I would be better off leaving things as-is.
That settles it: I'm only going to pirate up to version 6.
R.
Dave Balderstone
<rh...@nospam.com> wrote:
> That settles it: I'm only going to pirate up to version 6.
ROFL! (cleaning the monitor)
Mxsmanic
> That settles it: I'm only going to pirate up to version 6.
What changes between 6 and 7?
Peggy
news:eeiqv1p8cc1gvvodj...@4ax.com...
Well, there are more tools for pre-press, but I'm a designer. My favorite
thing is the ability to send proofs to clients that include editing tools
they can use to mark up the PDF and email it back to me. If more than one
person is making corrections, each person's edits are identified, but
they're merged.
My fax machine has taken a permanent lunch break ...
Marcel Weiher
> In article <1d9nv1dghmotcqbca...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not misinformation. Adobe CS products use a variation of the
>> Macrovision SafeCast system, which does direct physical writes to
>> specific sectors on your hard drive, bypassing the security of Windows
>> and compromising system security. I believe it writes directly to
>> physical sector 32, which nobody is supposed to touch (not even
>> Adobe).
> It's been demonstrated on the Mac that it writes to system sound files.
It also write into /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/Frameworks/ without
any warning.
Marcel
Marcel Weiher
> Let's try this again ...
> No "rootkit" has ever been installed by Adobe software. Yes, the
> activation facility of Adobe's software, similar to that of Microsoft
> and other software vendors, does put information in otherwise
> non-accessible disk sectors,
Which is *completely* unacceptable.
What if *I* put some information there and you just overwrite it?
After all it's *my* disk, not yours.
Marcel
Mxsmanic
> Which is *completely* unacceptable.
>
> What if *I* put some information there and you just overwrite it?
> After all it's *my* disk, not yours.
Exactly. And it bypasses the OS to do this, which makes it a rootkit.
The only reason Adobe has not found itself in trouble yet is that its
products are much less known and used than are Sony CDs and TurboTax.
I have no quarrel with copy-protection schemes per se, but I expect
them to behave better than the bad guys. Adobe's scheme is actually a
throwback to the MS-DOS days, when any program did anything it wanted,
especially for copy protection. Remember how much fun that was?
One wonders what the purpose of a secure operating system is if
software simply bypasses it as soon as it's running. I knew there was
something wrong with Adobe's software as soon as I was told that I had
to boot the system to complete installation. You never have to boot
XP to install any user software ... unless it is modifying the
operating system. Why would Acrobat need to modify the operating
system? Hmm.
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One wonders what the purpose of a secure operating system is if
> software simply bypasses it as soon as it's running. I knew there was
> something wrong with Adobe's software as soon as I was told that I had
> to boot the system to complete installation. You never have to boot
> XP to install any user software ... unless it is modifying the
> operating system. Why would Acrobat need to modify the operating
> system? Hmm.
And this is the point where Adobe's Dov Isaacs will suddenly no longer
reply to any questions...
Mxsmanic
> And this is the point where Adobe's Dov Isaacs will suddenly no longer
> reply to any questions...
I don't blame him. No sense getting Adobe any deeper into trouble,
and the more this rootkit is discussed, the more trouble is likely to
arise.
John Doherty
> Exactly. And it bypasses the OS to do this, which makes it a
> rootkit.
I agree that apps shouldn't be writing directly to disks, by passing
the operating system, but still, yours is an idiosyncratic use of the
word "rootkit."
--
Mxsmanic
> I agree that apps shouldn't be writing directly to disks, by passing
> the operating system, but still, yours is an idiosyncratic use of the
> word "rootkit."
I'm not so sure. This copy protection completely sidesteps the OS.
It uses a part of the disk that isn't even allocated to the current
operating system--a part of the disk that it is not authorized to
touch. It does physical I/O to these forbidden areas of the disk
without asking or notifying the user, which is already a first-class
breach of system security. It silently communicates with hosts on the
Internet. Sure sounds like a rootkit to me. A rootkit is anything
that usurps the operating system.
As I've said, this is a direct throwback to MS-DOS, when every program
did whatever it wanted, often with catastrophic results if you tried
to use a computer for more than one application. Apparently
Macrovision has never advanced beyond MS-DOS thinking. And apparently
Adobe cares nothing about user security, even though it seems paranoid
about its own, and is willing to sabotage its own customers' computer
systems to this end.
Unused sectors on track 0 don't even belong to the operating system,
much less Adobe or Macrovision, and there is zero excuse to touch
them. Anyone who touches these sectors is a black hat, no matter how
many billions of dollars or how many lawyers he has behind him.
John Doherty
>> I agree that apps shouldn't be writing directly to disks, by
>> passing the operating system, but still, yours is an idiosyncratic
>> use of the word "rootkit."
> A rootkit is anything that usurps the operating system.
That's not what most people mean when they say that, though. More
typically, people mean something like this (from wikipedia):
A rootkit is a set of software tools frequently used by a third
party (usually an intruder) after gaining access to a computer
system. These tools are intended to conceal running processes, files
or system data, which helps an intruder maintain access to a system
without the user's knowledge.
The term "rootkit" (also written as "root kit") originally referred
to a set of recompiled Unix tools such as "ps", "netstat", "w" and
"passwd" that would carefully hide any trace of the intruder that
those commands would normally display, thus allowing the intruders
to maintain "root" on the system without the system administrator
even seeing them.
A rootkit typically hides logins, processes, files, and logs and may
include software to intercept data from terminals, network
connections, and the keyboard.
And whatever Adobe is up to, I doubt it fits that description.
--
Mxsmanic
> And whatever Adobe is up to, I doubt it fits that description.
Whatever Adobe is up to, it's illegal in some jurisdictions.