Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

5/30/2010
07:42 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Adobe Contemplates Monthly Patch Cycle

While Apple has turned up the heat on Adobe by refusing the Flash platform on the iPhone and iPad platform - Adobe's customers have been coming under increasing fire from attackers for using its Flash and Adobe Reader applications. Now the company is considering taking a move from Microsoft's playbook and switching to a monthly patch cycle.

While Apple has turned up the heat on Adobe by refusing the Flash platform on the iPhone and iPad platform - Adobe's customers have been coming under increasing fire from attackers for using its Flash and Adobe Reader applications. Now the company is considering taking a move from Microsoft's playbook and switching to a monthly patch cycle.When it comes to security, Adobe has had a rough few years. But that's what happens to software companies that focus so heavily on features and design and barely a nod toward developing sustainable and secure applications. And from what I've been able to tell, that's exactly what Adobe has done for far too long.

Now its business customers are putting on the pressure (not unlike the pressure government agencies and Fortune 500 businesses placed on Microsoft after so many worm attacks earlier this decade) on Adobe to help better keep their systems secure.

According to this report from The H Security:

In view of the large number of security vulnerabilities discovered in recent months, major customers appear to have increased the pressure on Adobe to reduce the interval between security patch releases. Arkin has told The H's associates at heise Security that a monthly cycle is one of the alternatives currently under discussion. He adds that, in emergencies, Adobe is also now in a position to develop patches within 15 days and to release them outside of the regular patch cycle. This compares with the 80 days Arkin's team needed to develop a patch for the JBIG2 vulnerability in spring 2009.

In addition to Adobe Reader, the company wants to bring products such as Flash and Shockwave into the update cycle. Previously, updates for these products have been released as needed and when ready. It's not clear whether products other than Adobe Reader will be patched automatically by means of the new update mechanism.

The article doesn't say what the new update mechanism may be, but let's hope it's not modeled after the updater provided for OS X which is one of the buggiest, most useless software utilities I've ever been forced to contend.

While the increased patch cycle is welcomed, and will help to reduce the "window of vulnerability" to its customers, the company really has to do more to secure its new and legacy codebase.

Late last year, security vendor McAfee predicted that Adobe Reader and Flash would surpass Microsoft Office applications as a favorite target of cyber criminals. From Antone Gonsalves story, Adobe To Surpass Microsoft As Hacker Target:

In unveiling its 2010 Threat Predictions report, McAfee said the growing popularity of the Adobe products has attracted the attention of cybercriminals, who have been increasingly targeting the applications. Adobe Reader and Flash are two of the most widely deployed applications in the world.

As a result of Adobe's success in client software, McAfee Labs believes "Adobe product exploitation will likely surpass that of Microsoft Office applications in 2010." Security experts for quite a while have warned of the potential security risk posed by Flash. In November, Foreground Security identified a flaw in the way Web browsers handle Flash files that could be used to compromise Web sites that have users submit content.

Remind me, again, why we would want this software installed on our mobile phones and tablets, let alone our PCs?

For my security, business, and technology observations throughout the day find me on Twitter.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/5/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-12848
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
In Pydio Cells 2.0.4, once an authenticated user shares a file selecting the create a public link option, a hidden shared user account is created in the backend with a random username. An anonymous user that obtains a valid public link can get the associated hidden account username and password and ...
CVE-2020-12849
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
Pydio Cells 2.0.4 allows any user to upload a profile image to the web application, including standard and shared user roles. These profile pictures can later be accessed directly with the generated URL by any unauthenticated or authenticated user.
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).