Cronk
join:2005-07-16
Denver, CO | Adobe reader alternative
I'm considering an Adobe reader alternative, Foxit Reader. But I am wondering if the exploits that make the constant updates necessary for Adobe Reader would also make the Foxit Reader vulnerable. Any help appreciated.
Thanks |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| I think Foxit is going to be just as vulnerable as Adobe, for the most part. Most of those exploits concern .pdf files, which Foxit also handles, and the way they're handled by the OS & browser, not the specific application that handles them.
Foxit sure is a lot smaller, though. |
|
Cronk
join:2005-07-16
Denver, CO | Thanks for the info.
So then I guess my concern is whether or not Foxit is updated quickly as the new exploits are discovered. |
|
alamarco
o.O
join:2003-06-18
Windsor, ON
clubs:
| said by Cronk  :Thanks for the info. So then I guess my concern is whether or not Foxit is updated quickly as the new exploits are discovered. Does anyone have information on this? I like Foxit a lot better because it loads 100x faster than Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
|
Psicop
More human than human
Premium
join:2005-12-21
| reply to Cronk
Exploits for AA Reader and Firefox:
»www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/···064.html
Fixed in AA Reader v. 8
Do not affect Foxit Reader:
The problem is fixed in Adobe Acrobat 8, the latest version of the reader. internetnews.com was also able to confirm that the exploit does not affect Foxit Reader, a small, lightweight PDF reader and alternative to the Adobe Reader.
»www.internetnews.com/security/ar···/3651901 |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to alamarco
said by alamarco :said by Cronk :. . So then I guess my concern is whether or not Foxit is updated quickly as the new exploits are discovered. Does anyone have information on this? I like Foxit a lot better because it loads 100x faster than Adobe Acrobat Reader. Yes and no. I don't think Foxit uses javascript by default, which is what would make it generally 'safer'.
You can certainly get add-ons, though, which enable javascripting and therefore could potentially make it just as vulnerable.
Some general info along that line:
»advosys.ca/viewpoints/2007/01/av···ability/
»pollux.arstechnica.com/journals/···1/3/6469
»www.dozleng.com/updates/lofivers···106.html |
|
