Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Breach Compromised Over 38 Million Users, Photoshop Source Code

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the downside-to-massive-reach dept.

Security 145

rjmarvin writes "Adobe's investigation into the massive data breach they were hit with this past August has revealed that over 38 million active users, not to mention inactive accounts, had their user IDs and passwords pilfered by hackers. An Adobe spokesperson confirmed the number, along with the theft of Adobe Photoshop source code. The initial report earlier this month put the extent of the breach at only 3 million credit card accounts, plus stolen Adobe Acrobat, Reader and ColdFusion source code."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We can always hope (5, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#45273685)

The breach was made possible by a bug in Adobe Acrobat Reader I hope.
That would be Karma.

Re:We can always hope (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45273905)

The next breach will be made possible using the NSA backdoor that the hackers found in Flash Player source code.

Re:We can always hope (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45274039)

I think we can all agree that there's no need for an NSA-specific backdoor in that piece of crap...

Re:We can always hope (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#45273985)

In my experience, it's a safe bet that any company that cuts as many corners as Adobe does in one area probably cuts corners in almost every other area. This leads to the obvious question of whether the crackers will find any serious security holes in Photoshop and exploit them. Given how much they seem to resist fixing even the most trivial bugs in Photoshop, I'd be willing to bet that the entire codebase is an unholy cesspool, which means it is probably rife with security holes, too.

Re:We can always hope (4, Insightful)

dhaines (323241) | about a year ago | (#45274241)

...they seem to resist fixing even the most trivial bugs in Photoshop...

Adobe fixes bugs! They save up all the fixes then charge for them in the next release.

Re:We can always hope (3, Insightful)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about a year ago | (#45275405)

Now that we have no more perpetual licensing the issue of having to pay for a next release is a non-issue. They still haven't pushed out a compelling feature for my licenses to merit upgrading, however.

Re:We can always hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274251)

God help you if you open an untrusted .PSD

Re:We can always hope (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#45274257)

"probably cuts corners in almost every other area" uh let's make that 'always cuts corners ...'

Re:We can always hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275495)

Chthulla lives there.

Re:We can always hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274363)

Yeah, Reader crashes on me every day. It can't keep a PDF open for 24 hours, even when the PC is idling. Good riddance!

Re:We can always hope (2)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#45275735)

have you tried Foxit? I've been using it instead of adobe for years now. Lighter, faster, more stable, less annoying.

Re:We can always hope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274499)

I don't know, a flaw in Flash or CodeFusion would also be just deserts. The real question isn't even how they got in, but what took them so long.

With Photoshop "open sourced" (2)

RunFatBoy.net (960072) | about a year ago | (#45273699)

I can finally write that lens flair javascript library

-- Jim
Weekly feedback [weeklyfeedback.com] for your website.

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273801)

Lens flair?

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (4, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a year ago | (#45273995)

It's a very stylish lens.

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274273)

As my high school art teacher put it, "lens flare == bad; lens flair == good"

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#45274417)

It has to have flair... it works at Tchotchkes. It needs at least 15 pieces of flair!!!!

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year ago | (#45274583)

The source code was written in the late 80's

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#45273887)

How many pieces?

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45274051)

Is that what they implemented in the recent Star Trek movies?

Lens Flair: Using lens flares to add flair.

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year ago | (#45274095)

I you're allergic to Retnox 5...

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (3, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#45274387)

Oops. I think you just a word there.

Re:With Photoshop "open sourced" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275435)

He accidentaly the whole thing.

Aggro bat breeder attacks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273723)

I thought the whole cold fusion thing was a Photoshopped hoax...

Seriously. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273767)

This is becoming a legitimate reason to pirate software rather than buy it.

Re:Seriously. (2)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about a year ago | (#45275429)

High cost and stagnant development weren't enough?

The untold story (5, Funny)

dysmal (3361085) | about a year ago | (#45273771)

The untold story is that the hackers tried to give back the source code but Adobe said NO GIVE BACKS!

Re:The untold story (2)

0x15e (961860) | about a year ago | (#45273791)

Awww ... I was going to make that joke about the CF source. If only I had mod points.

Re:The untold story (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45273819)

Given the level of bloat in Photoshop and Acrobat, I'm amazed the hackers had enough disk space and time to download it.

Re:The untold story (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45274067)

95% of the codebase is the secret bug-generator. They just made sure not to pull down that external repository.

Re:The untold story (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45274193)

Given the level of bloat in Photoshop and Acrobat, I'm amazed the hackers had enough disk space and time to download it.

The source is actually only 370 KB. The rest comes from C++ template instantiation.

Re:The untold story (4, Funny)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year ago | (#45274845)

Oh come on, they probably accelerated their download with the Adobe Download Manager.

No News Is Good News (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273777)

Adobe hasn't notified me of anything so my data must be safe. Right?

Right?

Re:No News Is Good News (4, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45273871)

Adobe hasn't notified me of anything so my data must be safe. Right?

Right?

I got dozens of different notices. They had links to places where I could change my password. Lots of different places.

I could forward you a few if you want.

Re:No News Is Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275797)

You should have received an email like this back in August, but Adobe only sent the message out on 23-Oct-2013 (20 days after they announced it and 2 months after the breach):

From: email@mail.adobesystems.com
Date: 23/10/2013 4:58 AM

Important Password Reset Information

To view this message in a language other than English, please click here [adobe.com] .

As we announced on October 3, 2013, we recently discovered that an attacker illegally entered our network and may have obtained access to your Adobe ID and encrypted password. We currently have no indication that there has been unauthorized activity on your account.

To prevent unauthorized access to your account, we have reset your password. Please visit www.adobe.com/go/passwordreset to create a new password. We recommend that you also change your password on any website where you use the same user ID or password. In addition, please be on the lookout for suspicious email or phone scams seeking your personal information.

We deeply regret any inconvenience this may cause you. We value the trust of our customers and are working aggressively to prevent these types of events from occurring in the future. If you have questions, you can learn more by visiting our Customer Alert page, which you will find here [adobe.com] .

Adobe Customer Care

Note that that say encrypted password... dumbasses!

Cloudy skies (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45273789)

So how's that new "Cloud all the apps" thing working out for you guys so far? Ah. I see you leaked pretty much your whole database of people who had signed up for it. Well then, carry on.

In other news, I hope your new strategy crashes into the dirt so hard the only thing that'll be memorable about Adobe in 5 years will be is the case study on it in business classes around the world on how not to do it.

Would suck to be them (4, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45273807)

I know we're gonna get all the "ha ha, it's an evil megacorp anyway", but damn it must be stressful moments to some of the folks at Adobe. :/ Especially if the source code leaks turn out to be true.

Re:Would suck to be them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274285)

...it must be stressful moments to some of the folks at Adobe. :/ Especially if the source code leaks turn out to be true.

Why would Adobe be afraid of source code leaks? Did the guys who "acquired" the code say they're going to start running valgrind, purify or coverity...

Re:Would suck to be them (4, Funny)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year ago | (#45275209)

The rest of the world can finally see how god-awful their code really is.

Re:Would suck to be them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274379)

Well, Clapper told us today that "everyone does it." So it's all good. Hackers spy too. Everyone does it! Adobe would be naïve to think they can keep secrets. What are they, the NSA? Oh wait...

Re:Would suck to be them (3, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#45274403)

Allow me to introduce you to a new word... Schadenfreude [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Would suck to be them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274407)

You know, it serves them right.

After that whole Creative Cloud disaster, it's about time they start learning it the hard way. If only someone would come up with a competing line of products... It's kind of sad that this screw-up of a company is the leading provider of creative software...

Also, I started giving all those cloud services the finger. I'm fed up with my personal information being treated like open source.

Re:Would suck to be them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275025)

Yeah, how horrible it would be if the source code was leaked everywhere and people were able to see how the software they (or others) run on their computers actually works.

Re:Would suck to be them (3, Interesting)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about a year ago | (#45275097)

I know we're gonna get all the "ha ha, it's an evil megacorp anyway", but damn it must be stressful moments to some of the folks at Adobe. :/ Especially if the source code leaks turn out to be true.

Leaking the source will be a big embarrassment for Adobe. I mean given the quality of the applications there will probably be lots of comments on top of functions that say:

We have no idea what this function does. The guy who wrote it left and it is used for backwards capability. It is also tied into main areas of the program and can't be removed.

Oh no! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273839)

Oh no! Stolen!? I hope they get their source code back soon!

Re:Oh no! (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45273877)

I don't. Their source code would be better off in the hands of just about anybody else, including monkeys with typewriters.

Re:Oh no! (3)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year ago | (#45274357)

I don't. Their source code would be better off in the hands of just about anybody else, including monkeys with typewriters.

I was under the impression that it was initially created by monkeys with typewriters.

Re: Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274553)

Please do not insult monkeys!

Re: Oh no! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275451)

or typewriters...

Re:Oh no! (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year ago | (#45274599)

including monkeys with typewriters.

It's unfair to marginalize the support team like that. They work hard.

Is it time... (2)

ADRA (37398) | about a year ago | (#45273843)

I keep hearing about this breach and that breach, but what I'd love to see are some seriously ambitious groups of skilled security engineers standing up to help encourage good security practices that are widely recognized and standardized. The networked computing eco-system is so intertwined and desperate that how can any Jack or Jill admin be expected to have a fair set of skills in their toolbox to tackle such a hurdle? To expect any or ALL admins to have enough competence to just know the depth and complexity of a highly enabled enterprise is very unlikely.

For a possible first step, lets consider blocking broadcasts by default. All computers fall into 255.255.255.254 and rely on tight enforcement of shared communication as a reasonable start.
A second may be for all communications channels to be flagged with security credentials of the communications user (or machines), or anonymous for completely un'authorized' communications and rely on block by default as a sane start. Allow 'users' to reach out to unsecured locations if you like, but make sure that their connection to secured resources are a lot harder to reach (and fully audited when performed)

Anyways, this is a huge problem which is at least in part to why this happens over and over again. I could say X, and 100 experts will give me 101 answers to why its the most stupid solution in the world, so.... enjoy!

Re:Is it time... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45274087)

I'm not really sure what network and OS security has to do with application security?

Re:Is it time... (2)

dnaumov (453672) | about a year ago | (#45274465)

I keep hearing about this breach and that breach, but what I'd love to see are some seriously ambitious groups of skilled security engineers standing up to help encourage good security practices that are widely recognized and standardized.

According to the people with actual decision-making power, this would be too expensive. The end.

The Code was Photoshopped,,, (1)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#45273857)

so it wasn't real anyway.

Hmm... Source Code... (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#45273863)

While I fully realize that it would be both wrong and illegal, with the Photoshop source code in the wild, is it possible some of it could added to or at least quietly re-engineered into OSS projects? Real CMYK support for Gimp would be like birthday + xmas combined times a million.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273897)

Then it would have years of intense auditing. See: ReactOS

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45274003)

If GIMP wanted CMYK, then it could have done it a decade ago when it was first asked for. When they were laughed at for not having it. Repeatedly.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#45274025)

Yea, I know. But I can still dream!

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (3, Informative)

XanC (644172) | about a year ago | (#45274057)

According to their FAQ:
http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#cmyk [gimp.org]

"It is clear from the product vision that GIMP eventually needs to support CMYK, but it is impossible to say when someone finds the free time and motivation to add it."

So they're not anti-CMYK, it just hasn't been done yet.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45274133)

"It is clear from the product vision that GIMP eventually needs to support CMYK, but it is impossible to say when someone finds the free time and motivation to add it."

Sounds like another open source project with inappropriate funding. Sometimes it's nice to use commercial software just because of that: when the company can throw good cash at developers, they are motivated to work hard on new features.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45274311)

Sounds like another open source project with inappropriate funding.

They have much more important things to do. Like crippling the 'Save As' window so it can now only 'Save As' GIMP format, and you have to 'Export' to save a JPEG.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274533)

Nah, this is a great change. Export remembers your last used settings too.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275871)

when the company can throw good cash at developers, they are motivated to work hard on new features.

That's exactly why commercial software is so crap: they throw cash at product managers and developers to implement new features instead of fixing the broken functionality they already have to improve the "user experience". The result: layer of shit upon of layer of shit.

Businesses only see $profit in new features, not in customer service nor in customer satisfaction. I used to think Net Promoter Scores were crap, but if they were mandatory and public I expect there would be sea changes in the way business is done.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45274255)

CMYK and more should be there for 2.10, once GEGL [gegl.org] and babl [gegl.org] are fully incorporated.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year ago | (#45274325)

Correct, like 16-bit support, native RAW support, single-window GUI (that they fixed in the last version, after many years of discussion), and a name that makes sense.

It's not that the GIMP people will ever go and say "see, we told you that CMYK support is useless, who's laughing now?". Granted, almost nobody cares about CMYK support in GIMP, but the software still has a looong way to go and why shouldn't they want to have CMYK support?. I work with it almost daily as a hobbyist photographer and there are a lot of things that need to be added/fixed.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274441)

The GIMP was finished after they put in the lens flare and beveled edge effects.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (2)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45274479)

Being an amateur photographer, I wanted to design my own business cards for one of my businesses. Being exclusively linux/FOSS, I tried GIMP. On screen, I was quite proud of what I'd designed. Until I saw it on card.

Alas, my bold ambers came out a kind of bilberry blue in the test run of the cards. It's my belief that until I've got end-to-end RAW/CMYK, all I will be able to do is tweak curves and pay for another test run (less than 5e for 36 cards, and the kinds of people I'm giving these to don't care about the visuals, so it's an annoyance rather than a disaster). No idea how many iterations will be necessary.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year ago | (#45274869)

Your first mistake is using "exclusively linux/FOSS" when you need an OS that implements good color profiling. Unfortunately, Windows sucks at this (despite what some shills will say) and it doesn't even exist in a workable form in X, so the Mac is about your only option if you care about accurate color.

CMYK has nothing to do with this, any decent output device these days will do RGB / LAB / HSV to CMYK conversion on the fly.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (2)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about a year ago | (#45275517)

Any decent output device will have to mean an EFI or APPE [adobe.com] device, because pretty much everything else is balls at converting, including the bulk of rips which are old JAWS [globalgraphics.com] Short of it is if you don't have a $3000+ RIP upgrade you are going to get garbage if you don't normalize first.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

brantondaveperson (1023687) | about a year ago | (#45274523)

Did they ever fix the problem with layers not being unbounded? In photoshop, the size of a layer is effectively infinite. in the sense that it doesn't get clipped to the image extents. In GIMP, the layers are of a fixed size, and anything pasted into them is clipped to the image size.

Also, if I move a layer so that it's partially off the image, I now can't draw into parts of that layer.

Madenning.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

Agent ME (1411269) | about a year ago | (#45275851)

Layers have their own size, potentially distinct from the image size. You can make the layer larger than the image boundaries.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (2)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year ago | (#45274725)

Yes, but now that the Photoshop source is leaked they could just copy-paste the CMYK code into their project and hit compile.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#45274233)

That's a good idea. Hopefully, it will turn out like *BSD/ATT/Linux - while Adobe spends 10 years suing GIMP over the source code, a better image program will be developed by an asshole Finn with terrible body odor.

Re:Hmm... Source Code... (0)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about a year ago | (#45275045)

While I fully realize that it would be both wrong

Illegal perhaps, but there's nothing wrong about it.

In the "cloud", when it rains it pours (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#45273899)

That way when there's a breach your creative suite files can rain on 50 different countries at the same time, all at the speed of light.

Linux port! (2)

Arashi256 (1804688) | about a year ago | (#45273913)

Bring it! :D

Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (4, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#45274017)

Anyone else wondering why the sourcecode was even able to be accessed? Seems like a stupid thing to have on a web server, or able to access from a web server.

That's like leaving a laptop sitting on a seat in car while you are out shopping/whatever.

Re:Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274143)

i have same question. i must be missing some details, but why would a company put source code for a commercial product on a computer/server connected to the internet? umm

Re:Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274269)

So people from remote locations/offices/homes can access it. Why would it be on the same network as the website, though?

Re:Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275907)

Ever hear of SSH or VPNs? There's no reason for it to be accessible from the public internet.

Re:Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year ago | (#45274261)

Didn't the article say that they stole a ton off usernames and passwords?

You could try to use those username-password combinations as your dictionary and try to connect to a server that you believe provides access to the source... All it takes is one developer with source access who's sloppy with his passwords.

Re:Why was the sourcecode even on the server? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275575)

You think that's bad? GIMP puts all of their source and even the bug tracker on publicly accessible web servers.

Such is the beauty of the cloud to cybercrooks. (2)

Dega704 (1454673) | about a year ago | (#45274097)

Even the best of security practices does little to dissuade them when all of the eggs are in one basket.

Re:Such is the beauty of the cloud to cybercrooks. (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#45274279)

Not only that, but Adobe wants to move ALL their customers to the cloud!

Creative Cloud Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274151)

I wonder how the asshole(s) that decided that hosting everything in the cloud feels now?

I wonder how people feel about Adobe having all of their CC information in the cloud?

Adobe will pay for the poor decisions it's Management Team has made. I feel sorry for the employees that will feel the effects of this.

AFA The Managerment Team goes: You Reap What You Sow. Everyone of you should be replaced.

My Photoshop CS2 serves me very well and will continue to do so until Gimp catches up. (I realize I might be dead before that happens, but one can hope that that won't be the case).

Re:Creative Cloud Crap (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a year ago | (#45274855)

My Photoshop CS2 serves me very well and will continue to do so until Gimp catches up. (I realize I might be dead before that happens, but one can hope that that won't be the case).

And I'm on CS3. But you are correct about upgrading. Adobe and their business model of us having to spend thousands every 2 years on the new suites, and now wanting us to just install a pipeline from our wallets to their bank account, was getting creaky a few years back. Which of course is why you are still running CS2, and me CS3.

Software as a service is fatally flawed, Adobe has found that out. It will be interesting to see their astroturf project re this.

Re:Creative Cloud Crap (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year ago | (#45275265)

My Photoshop CS2 serves me very well and will continue to do so until Gimp catches up.

Me too, especially since CS2 is effectively free now. Adobe shut down the activation servers earlier this year so they actually gave out activation-free CS2 installers AND their serials. It's the only non-douchebaggy thing Adobe has done in recent memory.

Re:Creative Cloud Crap (1)

intermelt (196274) | about a year ago | (#45275557)

Gimp will never catch up (you will be dead). This isn't about humoring yourself. This isn't even about Adobe Creative Cloud. This is about a breach. They don't have that many Creative Cloud subscribers yet. They have approximately 30 full time programmers. If this were a Creative Cloud breach then 38,000,000 * 50 = $1.9 billion a month. Really? That comes to $6.3 million per developer. Take 90% out for expenses and you are still at $633,000 per developer. Not the case.

That being said. The only information Adobe has on me is my name, email and possibly credit card number. All useless information. I don't have to put any of my files in "the cloud" it is just a convenience if I decide to. Just like... dropbox, gdrive, etc.

If someone really wanted your personal information they would break into your house during the day while you were at work (you do work?) and just take you hard drive. Probably under 3 minutes. No tail. No explanation. Done. Then come here and complain about your info being in the cloud.

If you use Adobe products professionally your CS2 won't last long. The people are moving to CC. Adobe is a real product that is unfortunately not open-source, yet it costs less than your internet or phone on a monthly basis. Or even less than a tank gas. Tell me how that is wrong. You don't make money off your gas. You make money off their professional products.

BTW... I run several open-source businesses. I believe in it. But certain products can't be open sourced if you want quality.

They can keep ColdFusion (0)

alef.01 (616834) | about a year ago | (#45274293)

If were the hacker I'd send the back the CF code with an apology note.

Re:They can keep ColdFusion (1)

scdeimos (632778) | about a year ago | (#45275733)

I liked ColdFusion while it was still in Macromedia's hands.

Finally an alternative to PS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274301)

Bout time! Maybe a price break as well

Organisation-wide failure - /. hubris spot-on? (2)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#45274349)

I know it's popular to rubbish Adobe here, but this report, if true, would seem to justify the Adobe-hate.
And I say this as someone who has happily used many of their products over the years, (although less so, lately).

Yes, we all know security is hard, but if you're a leading tech company with internal safeguards so lax that one breach can leak both user IDs and source code well, frankly, you're shit.

Why didn't Adobe kept Source code offline ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45274351)

Why didn't Adobe kept all its source code somewhere offline ?
I mean ..... Photoshop is Adobe's bread and butter, it would be a disaster of same magnitude as if MS lost source code for it's Office.

Re:Why didn't Adobe kept Source code offline ? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#45274569)

Work at home access?

There are plenty of reasons I am sure, that being one of them. Was it a good idea? Well no.

Re:Why didn't Adobe kept Source code offline ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275213)

Any connection outside of the Intranet, work-at-home or otherwise, should be through a VPN connection providing access to a network that is otherwise only internally accessible. If Adobe stored internal VPN login information in the same place as user data (or allowed the same login credentials for CC and their VPN), they have failed to adhere to some of the most basic network security principles. They deserve to go down in flames - and GIMP deserves to make a quantum leap.

On the bright side I have a feeling the CF source code is like the videotape from The Ring - whoever got ahold of it has either turned to stone or suffered some terrible, horrible death.

minus 1, TrOll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275149)

future. The 4and niigerness? And Overly morbid and your replies rather Are She had taken area. It is the for membership. OS I do, because For the project.

shocker (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45275195)

Wow, and Adobe is so into security. It's practically their specialty. By the way, this isn't a commonly known fact but their user support forums make 4chan look sincere, civil, and helpful by comparison.

Why all the hate? (2)

intermelt (196274) | about a year ago | (#45275371)

I understand this is /. but I don't understand why every "insightful" post is against Adobe. Adobe has marketed to to their users. Their market is not an opensource market. Their market is people who want something that works. Their IP is priceless and I believe their "Cloud" platform has been correctly. Up until they offered Creative Cloud I never had a licensed version of an Adobe product. I now have a licensed adobe product on my home and work computers. They are not evil by any means. My subscription can lapse and things still work. Programs are installed locally. The only connect now and then to confirm the license. I now get updates on a regular basis. Their code is considered top notch by professionals. I have rarely had an Adobe application crash on me. It just works. You can't say that about any of the competitors, open-source or not. I've tried using Gimp or Paint Shop Pro. They don't even compete with Photoshop.

As far as we know this breach has nothing to do with the "security" or "programming ability" at Adobe. It could have easily been an insider. Or maybe just someone who knows what they are doing and has been at it for years. Any system can be easily breached internally and any system can be breached given time.

Stop making assumptions and look at the facts. The facts about the situation are non-existent. The facts about their programming ability is public knowledge and they have proven themselves. Anyone that thinks otherwise... show me what you have done that has the capabilities of their software. You won't. Their software (Adobe Acrobat) is used everywhere. More than Flash was (Flash was Macromedia, not Adobe) If it sucked it won't be used. Don't give me any analogies about how Windows sucks and it still is used! Windows doesn't suck. Any professional Linux user will agree that it satisfies its market, which happens to be a very large market. I love Linux but all my computers have Windows. Why? because it works as it should. Oh it's not free? You get what you pay for. That goes for Adobe products too. Talk to one of their programmers. Find out what a real development environment is like. Ask them how much time is devoted to their product. Ask them how much time is devoted to testing. Ask them how much time is devoted to refactoring their code. This is not Microsoft. They can't get away with just adding on. They invent and make new. They are worth it.

A small hiccup like this is nothing. It has happened to companies magnitudes greater and no one blinks an eye. Adobe as been completely transparent about what happened.

They should be applauded for their efforts to inform people.

I can't wait until slashdot is compromised. It will happen. My encrypted password will be stolen. Oh no! 100's of sites have my encrypted password. Just like they all have yours. Oh... you use a different password for every site. First.. I call BS! You don't. You want to project a fake reality. Fine. You are then just stupid. You really only need 3 - 4 different passwords.

1. Banking/PayPal
2. Email
3. Other Sites
4. Optional/ Social Sites (could fall under "other sites"

This keeps you safe. A max of 4 passwords. If you can't figure out the logic, then just move on.

So how does all this roll back into Adobe?
1. If you use only 1 password you are stupid.
2. If you use 2 - 4 passwords, you don't care.
3. This isn't Adobe's fault, it just happens.
4. If it bothers you then why do you have an Adobe account in the first place?
5. We all use Adobe products and could not live without them. (btw... this is not a monopoly! think before you respond with those ideas)

I think this is enough to get my point across.

Re:Why all the hate? (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about a year ago | (#45275645)

Your subscription can lapse and you can still work with it? I don't think you read the fine print. You can no longer buy it nor can you license it. You rent it. You stop paying, you stop playing.

And users' email addresses were sold to spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275719)

I use unique honeypot email addresses whenever I register for access to a web site or service. I started receiving "Wanna have some fun with cute and interesting woman?" emails on Adobe's honeypot almost immediately after the breach. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?