<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_141228</id>
	<title>Rogue PDFs Behind 80\% of Exploits In Q4 '09</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266417000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Just hours before Adobe is <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9156038/Adobe\_to\_rush\_out\_another\_critical\_Reader\_patch">slated to deliver</a> the latest patches for its popular PDF viewer,  ScanSafe announced that by its counting, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9157438/Rogue\_PDFs\_account\_for\_80\_of\_all\_exploits\_says\_researcher">malicious Adobe Reader documents made up 80\% of all exploits at the end of 2009</a>. In the first quarter of 2009, malicious PDF files made up 56\% of all exploits tracked by ScanSafe. That figure climbed above 60\% in the second quarter, over 70\% in the third and finished at 80\% in the fourth quarter. Mary Landesman, a ScanSafe senior security researcher, said, 'Attackers are choosing PDFs for a reason. It's not random. They're establishing a preference for Reader exploits.' Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divine, however. 'Perhaps they are more successful,' she said. 'Or maybe it's because criminal attackers are human, too. We respond when we see a lot of people going after a particular product... We all want to go after that product, too. In the attacker arena, they might be thinking, 'Gee, all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days, maybe I should get in on them too.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Just hours before Adobe is slated to deliver the latest patches for its popular PDF viewer , ScanSafe announced that by its counting , malicious Adobe Reader documents made up 80 \ % of all exploits at the end of 2009 .
In the first quarter of 2009 , malicious PDF files made up 56 \ % of all exploits tracked by ScanSafe .
That figure climbed above 60 \ % in the second quarter , over 70 \ % in the third and finished at 80 \ % in the fourth quarter .
Mary Landesman , a ScanSafe senior security researcher , said , 'Attackers are choosing PDFs for a reason .
It 's not random .
They 're establishing a preference for Reader exploits .
' Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divine , however .
'Perhaps they are more successful, ' she said .
'Or maybe it 's because criminal attackers are human , too .
We respond when we see a lot of people going after a particular product... We all want to go after that product , too .
In the attacker arena , they might be thinking , 'Gee , all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days , maybe I should get in on them too .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Just hours before Adobe is slated to deliver the latest patches for its popular PDF viewer,  ScanSafe announced that by its counting, malicious Adobe Reader documents made up 80\% of all exploits at the end of 2009.
In the first quarter of 2009, malicious PDF files made up 56\% of all exploits tracked by ScanSafe.
That figure climbed above 60\% in the second quarter, over 70\% in the third and finished at 80\% in the fourth quarter.
Mary Landesman, a ScanSafe senior security researcher, said, 'Attackers are choosing PDFs for a reason.
It's not random.
They're establishing a preference for Reader exploits.
' Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divine, however.
'Perhaps they are more successful,' she said.
'Or maybe it's because criminal attackers are human, too.
We respond when we see a lot of people going after a particular product... We all want to go after that product, too.
In the attacker arena, they might be thinking, 'Gee, all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days, maybe I should get in on them too.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170816</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>who cares, non-windows desktop platforms are just as relevant as non-adobe pdf readers. aka not at all. you can use your inferior readers all you want on your openbsd boxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares , non-windows desktop platforms are just as relevant as non-adobe pdf readers .
aka not at all .
you can use your inferior readers all you want on your openbsd boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares, non-windows desktop platforms are just as relevant as non-adobe pdf readers.
aka not at all.
you can use your inferior readers all you want on your openbsd boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172192</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That Apache argument is one of the best I have heard. Sometimes I think I should develop a database for all the reasons Windows sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Apache argument is one of the best I have heard .
Sometimes I think I should develop a database for all the reasons Windows sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Apache argument is one of the best I have heard.
Sometimes I think I should develop a database for all the reasons Windows sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172338</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>sleeper0</author>
	<datestamp>1265049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the secunia pointer, seems like just the type of thing I've been wanting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the secunia pointer , seems like just the type of thing I 've been wanting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the secunia pointer, seems like just the type of thing I've been wanting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172138</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1265049300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You commie FOSS people say its Microsoft's fault every time. Free software is tererism! True Patriots Use Windows!

-- Your friendly neighborhood MSFT shill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You commie FOSS people say its Microsoft 's fault every time .
Free software is tererism !
True Patriots Use Windows !
-- Your friendly neighborhood MSFT shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You commie FOSS people say its Microsoft's fault every time.
Free software is tererism!
True Patriots Use Windows!
-- Your friendly neighborhood MSFT shill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170412</id>
	<title>Re:Should PDFs be dangerous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't turn it off! I spent a whole day making the charts in my PDF rearrange themselves with some nifty javascript. If you turn javascript off and you encounter my document on the web you won't get the full experience!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't turn it off !
I spent a whole day making the charts in my PDF rearrange themselves with some nifty javascript .
If you turn javascript off and you encounter my document on the web you wo n't get the full experience !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't turn it off!
I spent a whole day making the charts in my PDF rearrange themselves with some nifty javascript.
If you turn javascript off and you encounter my document on the web you won't get the full experience!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173306</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1265052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;You can actually do this, in the Firefox prefs, under the Applications tab. (</p><p>Oh, I do. Id prefer to see it as the default for the application. Joe Sixpack isnt doing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You can actually do this , in the Firefox prefs , under the Applications tab .
( Oh , I do .
Id prefer to see it as the default for the application .
Joe Sixpack isnt doing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;You can actually do this, in the Firefox prefs, under the Applications tab.
(Oh, I do.
Id prefer to see it as the default for the application.
Joe Sixpack isnt doing this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171060</id>
	<title>Re:What about alternate readers?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1265046240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes Foxit actually has <a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/announcements/200939coAT.html" title="foxitsoftware.com">security issues as well.I personally don't think there are as many because Foxit isn't in as much wide use (Foxit isn't bundled with new PC's for instance).</a> [foxitsoftware.com]</p><p>The plain and simple fact is that it is hard to make secure software. Couple that with the fact that the PDF format is well over 20 years old (as you can imagine there's a lot of legacy code in the viewer) and you have a recipe for the perfect security nightmare.</p><p>The other problem is - once one researcher/hacker finds a big exploit the blood is in the water and suddenly you have a bunch of people looking into it for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Foxit actually has security issues as well.I personally do n't think there are as many because Foxit is n't in as much wide use ( Foxit is n't bundled with new PC 's for instance ) .
[ foxitsoftware.com ] The plain and simple fact is that it is hard to make secure software .
Couple that with the fact that the PDF format is well over 20 years old ( as you can imagine there 's a lot of legacy code in the viewer ) and you have a recipe for the perfect security nightmare.The other problem is - once one researcher/hacker finds a big exploit the blood is in the water and suddenly you have a bunch of people looking into it for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Foxit actually has security issues as well.I personally don't think there are as many because Foxit isn't in as much wide use (Foxit isn't bundled with new PC's for instance).
[foxitsoftware.com]The plain and simple fact is that it is hard to make secure software.
Couple that with the fact that the PDF format is well over 20 years old (as you can imagine there's a lot of legacy code in the viewer) and you have a recipe for the perfect security nightmare.The other problem is - once one researcher/hacker finds a big exploit the blood is in the water and suddenly you have a bunch of people looking into it for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171214</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1265046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly enough - in my days at Adobe doing Tier 3 support - the exploit PDF's I'd get from various sources internally were hard to move around the network because virus scanners would delete or clean them up.</p><p>I found this rather surprising many times because these scanners would do this to files that were zero day exploits and files that weren't yet disclosed to the public.</p><p>Also if your installing reader to your enterprise you can disable browser integration, javascript and a myriad of other features out of the box.</p><p>Acrobat/Reader does have a trust manager - but that is only invoked when the viewer goes to an external service to the PC (like the net).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enough - in my days at Adobe doing Tier 3 support - the exploit PDF 's I 'd get from various sources internally were hard to move around the network because virus scanners would delete or clean them up.I found this rather surprising many times because these scanners would do this to files that were zero day exploits and files that were n't yet disclosed to the public.Also if your installing reader to your enterprise you can disable browser integration , javascript and a myriad of other features out of the box.Acrobat/Reader does have a trust manager - but that is only invoked when the viewer goes to an external service to the PC ( like the net ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enough - in my days at Adobe doing Tier 3 support - the exploit PDF's I'd get from various sources internally were hard to move around the network because virus scanners would delete or clean them up.I found this rather surprising many times because these scanners would do this to files that were zero day exploits and files that weren't yet disclosed to the public.Also if your installing reader to your enterprise you can disable browser integration, javascript and a myriad of other features out of the box.Acrobat/Reader does have a trust manager - but that is only invoked when the viewer goes to an external service to the PC (like the net).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172766</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Adobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.foxitsoftware.com/announcements/200939coAT.html</p><p>foxit has a better security record, not a perfect security record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.foxitsoftware.com/announcements/200939coAT.htmlfoxit has a better security record , not a perfect security record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.foxitsoftware.com/announcements/200939coAT.htmlfoxit has a better security record, not a perfect security record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172240</id>
	<title>clueless...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This statement shows how clueless the author is about why hackers chose Adobe.<br>&gt;Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divine<br>Adobe apparently has 99\% market share for the PDF industry....as well offers free readers without the need for license or redistribution.<br>If you think also that almost all windows machines have some form of adobe reader, writer or other installed on them, and most apps cross communicate formats, then you can see why the most successful hacks are PDF files.</p><p>I use foxit pdf viewer, as it does not contain all the vulnerabilities that adobe does, as it does not allow javascript etc.<br>for the same reason i prefer firefox over IE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This statement shows how clueless the author is about why hackers chose Adobe. &gt; Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divineAdobe apparently has 99 \ % market share for the PDF industry....as well offers free readers without the need for license or redistribution.If you think also that almost all windows machines have some form of adobe reader , writer or other installed on them , and most apps cross communicate formats , then you can see why the most successful hacks are PDF files.I use foxit pdf viewer , as it does not contain all the vulnerabilities that adobe does , as it does not allow javascript etc.for the same reason i prefer firefox over IE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This statement shows how clueless the author is about why hackers chose Adobe.&gt;Exactly why hackers choose Adobe as their prime target is tougher to divineAdobe apparently has 99\% market share for the PDF industry....as well offers free readers without the need for license or redistribution.If you think also that almost all windows machines have some form of adobe reader, writer or other installed on them, and most apps cross communicate formats, then you can see why the most successful hacks are PDF files.I use foxit pdf viewer, as it does not contain all the vulnerabilities that adobe does, as it does not allow javascript etc.for the same reason i prefer firefox over IE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175094</id>
	<title>Re:Which PDF viewer?</title>
	<author>Raven737</author>
	<datestamp>1265015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if you just want to READ pdf files (not print them) then i would suggest just loading them in Google Docs.<br>
You don't need any plugins for that (no Flash etc) as each page is simply converted to an image server side. I would think that this is secure.<br>
<br>
In any case i always disable all file format plugins in FireFox. It actually happened a few days ago that i was suddenly asked to save a PDF file even though i didn't click on any link, on examining adblock i found a hidden iframe that apparently tried to load what i am very certain was a malicious pdf in the background.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you just want to READ pdf files ( not print them ) then i would suggest just loading them in Google Docs .
You do n't need any plugins for that ( no Flash etc ) as each page is simply converted to an image server side .
I would think that this is secure .
In any case i always disable all file format plugins in FireFox .
It actually happened a few days ago that i was suddenly asked to save a PDF file even though i did n't click on any link , on examining adblock i found a hidden iframe that apparently tried to load what i am very certain was a malicious pdf in the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you just want to READ pdf files (not print them) then i would suggest just loading them in Google Docs.
You don't need any plugins for that (no Flash etc) as each page is simply converted to an image server side.
I would think that this is secure.
In any case i always disable all file format plugins in FireFox.
It actually happened a few days ago that i was suddenly asked to save a PDF file even though i didn't click on any link, on examining adblock i found a hidden iframe that apparently tried to load what i am very certain was a malicious pdf in the background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed.</p></div><p>And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents.  We have a well-established convention of distinguishing "documents" from "applications"; "documents" are passive collections of information, whereas "applications" do stuff.
</p><p>We block applications and scripts because they do stuff and we can't easily know what it is that they do, but we don't block documents because, in theory, they can't do anything.  Loading a document in its proper viewer application shouldn't do anything that the viewer wasn't explicitly designed to do.  If you throw scripting applications and macros into the documents, then suddenly the "documents" do stuff too.  This, in my opinion, is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs , and can open " ZIP " files to determine if an EXE is enclosed.And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents .
We have a well-established convention of distinguishing " documents " from " applications " ; " documents " are passive collections of information , whereas " applications " do stuff .
We block applications and scripts because they do stuff and we ca n't easily know what it is that they do , but we do n't block documents because , in theory , they ca n't do anything .
Loading a document in its proper viewer application should n't do anything that the viewer was n't explicitly designed to do .
If you throw scripting applications and macros into the documents , then suddenly the " documents " do stuff too .
This , in my opinion , is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed.And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents.
We have a well-established convention of distinguishing "documents" from "applications"; "documents" are passive collections of information, whereas "applications" do stuff.
We block applications and scripts because they do stuff and we can't easily know what it is that they do, but we don't block documents because, in theory, they can't do anything.
Loading a document in its proper viewer application shouldn't do anything that the viewer wasn't explicitly designed to do.
If you throw scripting applications and macros into the documents, then suddenly the "documents" do stuff too.
This, in my opinion, is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1265039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe reader's web plugin simply opens PDFs without any warning. Nor does it warn if there is javascript running on the PDF. Its a cracker's dream.  Most other applications give some kind of warning, especially if there's something scripted in the document. Adobe does none of this.  Heck, you can disable Javascript but it will helpfully remind you that its disabled and offer to unblock it if you attempt to open a pdf with javascript.  Its really an incredibly terrible way to handle security.</p><p>This thing should at least be shipping with js disabled and the only way to enable it is by going into Preferences.  The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader.  One can dream, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe reader 's web plugin simply opens PDFs without any warning .
Nor does it warn if there is javascript running on the PDF .
Its a cracker 's dream .
Most other applications give some kind of warning , especially if there 's something scripted in the document .
Adobe does none of this .
Heck , you can disable Javascript but it will helpfully remind you that its disabled and offer to unblock it if you attempt to open a pdf with javascript .
Its really an incredibly terrible way to handle security.This thing should at least be shipping with js disabled and the only way to enable it is by going into Preferences .
The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader .
One can dream , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe reader's web plugin simply opens PDFs without any warning.
Nor does it warn if there is javascript running on the PDF.
Its a cracker's dream.
Most other applications give some kind of warning, especially if there's something scripted in the document.
Adobe does none of this.
Heck, you can disable Javascript but it will helpfully remind you that its disabled and offer to unblock it if you attempt to open a pdf with javascript.
Its really an incredibly terrible way to handle security.This thing should at least be shipping with js disabled and the only way to enable it is by going into Preferences.
The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader.
One can dream, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170084</id>
	<title>Duh.</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not difficult to figure out why PDFs are targeted.<ol> <li>Most big corporations and academia use PDFs for everything from forms to memos to sending photos of last week's retreat.</li><li>Most big corporations and academia hire super-specialists that can, for example, diagnose a medical issue that occurs in 1 in 10,000,000 people within 5 minutes, but these people cannot function in the larger world and have no time, patience, or idea of what to do with these things you call "files."</li><li>Most of these aforementioned corporations and academia will have ridiculously oversized bureaucracies that can agree to standards once every 15 years, are easily swayed by easy solutions, such as those advertised by Adobe, and don't really know or care about whether anything gets done so long as the policies they set 15 years ago are followed to the letter.</li><li>And yes, Adobe makes awful, bloated software that's full of security holes and doesn't get patched for weeks or months after those holes are made public.</li></ol><p>In other words, the issue is roughly 25\% bad software and 75\% PEBKAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not difficult to figure out why PDFs are targeted .
Most big corporations and academia use PDFs for everything from forms to memos to sending photos of last week 's retreat.Most big corporations and academia hire super-specialists that can , for example , diagnose a medical issue that occurs in 1 in 10,000,000 people within 5 minutes , but these people can not function in the larger world and have no time , patience , or idea of what to do with these things you call " files .
" Most of these aforementioned corporations and academia will have ridiculously oversized bureaucracies that can agree to standards once every 15 years , are easily swayed by easy solutions , such as those advertised by Adobe , and do n't really know or care about whether anything gets done so long as the policies they set 15 years ago are followed to the letter.And yes , Adobe makes awful , bloated software that 's full of security holes and does n't get patched for weeks or months after those holes are made public.In other words , the issue is roughly 25 \ % bad software and 75 \ % PEBKAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not difficult to figure out why PDFs are targeted.
Most big corporations and academia use PDFs for everything from forms to memos to sending photos of last week's retreat.Most big corporations and academia hire super-specialists that can, for example, diagnose a medical issue that occurs in 1 in 10,000,000 people within 5 minutes, but these people cannot function in the larger world and have no time, patience, or idea of what to do with these things you call "files.
"Most of these aforementioned corporations and academia will have ridiculously oversized bureaucracies that can agree to standards once every 15 years, are easily swayed by easy solutions, such as those advertised by Adobe, and don't really know or care about whether anything gets done so long as the policies they set 15 years ago are followed to the letter.And yes, Adobe makes awful, bloated software that's full of security holes and doesn't get patched for weeks or months after those holes are made public.In other words, the issue is roughly 25\% bad software and 75\% PEBKAC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174326</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>Ahnteis</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do it that way, but it's better to go into Acrobat settings under "internet" and tell it not to open PDFs in the browser.  Then disable the plugin.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do it that way , but it 's better to go into Acrobat settings under " internet " and tell it not to open PDFs in the browser .
Then disable the plugin .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do it that way, but it's better to go into Acrobat settings under "internet" and tell it not to open PDFs in the browser.
Then disable the plugin.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171410</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1265047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What no one, especially Adobe, talks about is the possibility that some of these crackers are former programmers for Adobe with access to source code. I'm sure the fact that Adobe rarely fixes holes in its software, preferring to make customers upgrade instead, makes them an even more tempting target.  Probably 3/4 of our customers are running Acrobat Reader 7 or earlier because no one wants to go to the trouble of upgrading reader software, and Adobe's filthy habit of forcing customers to install garbage that they vehemently don't want (like their stinking download manager) doesn't help matters.<br>
<br>For that matter I don't know the situation now, but previously security at Adobe's facilities was almost non-existant.  I once had a co-irker who, in the days before WiFi everywhere, would drop by Adobe's offices, tailgate someone into the building and sit down at a random cubicle when he needed Internet access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What no one , especially Adobe , talks about is the possibility that some of these crackers are former programmers for Adobe with access to source code .
I 'm sure the fact that Adobe rarely fixes holes in its software , preferring to make customers upgrade instead , makes them an even more tempting target .
Probably 3/4 of our customers are running Acrobat Reader 7 or earlier because no one wants to go to the trouble of upgrading reader software , and Adobe 's filthy habit of forcing customers to install garbage that they vehemently do n't want ( like their stinking download manager ) does n't help matters .
For that matter I do n't know the situation now , but previously security at Adobe 's facilities was almost non-existant .
I once had a co-irker who , in the days before WiFi everywhere , would drop by Adobe 's offices , tailgate someone into the building and sit down at a random cubicle when he needed Internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What no one, especially Adobe, talks about is the possibility that some of these crackers are former programmers for Adobe with access to source code.
I'm sure the fact that Adobe rarely fixes holes in its software, preferring to make customers upgrade instead, makes them an even more tempting target.
Probably 3/4 of our customers are running Acrobat Reader 7 or earlier because no one wants to go to the trouble of upgrading reader software, and Adobe's filthy habit of forcing customers to install garbage that they vehemently don't want (like their stinking download manager) doesn't help matters.
For that matter I don't know the situation now, but previously security at Adobe's facilities was almost non-existant.
I once had a co-irker who, in the days before WiFi everywhere, would drop by Adobe's offices, tailgate someone into the building and sit down at a random cubicle when he needed Internet access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169048</id>
	<title>This will kill pdf</title>
	<author>dee.cz</author>
	<datestamp>1265039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>one already can't send pdf attachments or even links to pdf to customers without risk of mail being deleted or lost in spam folder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>one already ca n't send pdf attachments or even links to pdf to customers without risk of mail being deleted or lost in spam folder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one already can't send pdf attachments or even links to pdf to customers without risk of mail being deleted or lost in spam folder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173284</id>
	<title>Re:Because of JavaScript support in Adobe Reader!</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1265052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If I wanted to disable Javascript entirely, I'd do it in the browser preferences or options or whatever that is.  The advantage of NoScript is that it does it selectively.  Most sites I go to I've just activated permanently in NoScript.  Of course, this leaves me vulnerable to an attack from Slashdot and other such sites, but I can't get perfect security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they 've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation .
If I wanted to disable Javascript entirely , I 'd do it in the browser preferences or options or whatever that is .
The advantage of NoScript is that it does it selectively .
Most sites I go to I 've just activated permanently in NoScript .
Of course , this leaves me vulnerable to an attack from Slashdot and other such sites , but I ca n't get perfect security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation.
If I wanted to disable Javascript entirely, I'd do it in the browser preferences or options or whatever that is.
The advantage of NoScript is that it does it selectively.
Most sites I go to I've just activated permanently in NoScript.
Of course, this leaves me vulnerable to an attack from Slashdot and other such sites, but I can't get perfect security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170814</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Adobe</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not calling you a shill, Mr bjackson1, but we all know they lurk on Slashdot.<br><br>Can anyone else confirm that Foxit has known security problems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not calling you a shill , Mr bjackson1 , but we all know they lurk on Slashdot.Can anyone else confirm that Foxit has known security problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not calling you a shill, Mr bjackson1, but we all know they lurk on Slashdot.Can anyone else confirm that Foxit has known security problems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170252</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Foxit is a buggy piece of crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Foxit is a buggy piece of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foxit is a buggy piece of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</id>
	<title>Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Note: Trying not to slashvertise, just sharing some info about a program that's helped me stay secure. I have no affiliation with Secunia, I just like the tool a lot.)<br> <br>
I scan with Secunia's (a Danish computer security company) <a href="http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/" title="secunia.com">freeware tool</a> [secunia.com] to check if I have insecure applications.<br> <br>
3 times out of 4, when something has a category 4 or category 5 exploit (e.x. click2own), it's Adobe Flash Player, Shockwave, AIR, Reader/Acrobat, etc.
<br> <br>
It's also interesting because it tells you if your browsers are insecure (due to plugins or the browser itself). Both IE8 and Chrome are insecure in current versions with all patches.
<br> <br>
It was pretty eye opening for me, because I thought that I kept secure, but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner. I'm always skeptical about getting stuff for free, but I imagine that Secunia uses the data to improve the accuracy of their business software.
<br> <br>
To return to the story topic... when possible, use Adobe alternatives (e.x. Sumatra instead of Adobe Reader) and check your flash player and shockwave player versions at least once a week.
<br> <br>Firefox Users can use Mozilla's <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/plugincheck" title="mozilla.com">plugin check</a> [mozilla.com].
<br> <br>
One more thing in my diatribe...recent versions of the Shockwave Player don't update correctly. I installed the latest version to fix a couple critical vulnerabilities only to find out that it wouldn't reomve the vulnerable files from my system directory. I had to download the Shockwave uninstaller, reboot my PC, reinstall shockwave, and reboot again. I felt like I was back on Windows 9x again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Note : Trying not to slashvertise , just sharing some info about a program that 's helped me stay secure .
I have no affiliation with Secunia , I just like the tool a lot .
) I scan with Secunia 's ( a Danish computer security company ) freeware tool [ secunia.com ] to check if I have insecure applications .
3 times out of 4 , when something has a category 4 or category 5 exploit ( e.x .
click2own ) , it 's Adobe Flash Player , Shockwave , AIR , Reader/Acrobat , etc .
It 's also interesting because it tells you if your browsers are insecure ( due to plugins or the browser itself ) .
Both IE8 and Chrome are insecure in current versions with all patches .
It was pretty eye opening for me , because I thought that I kept secure , but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner .
I 'm always skeptical about getting stuff for free , but I imagine that Secunia uses the data to improve the accuracy of their business software .
To return to the story topic... when possible , use Adobe alternatives ( e.x .
Sumatra instead of Adobe Reader ) and check your flash player and shockwave player versions at least once a week .
Firefox Users can use Mozilla 's plugin check [ mozilla.com ] .
One more thing in my diatribe...recent versions of the Shockwave Player do n't update correctly .
I installed the latest version to fix a couple critical vulnerabilities only to find out that it would n't reomve the vulnerable files from my system directory .
I had to download the Shockwave uninstaller , reboot my PC , reinstall shockwave , and reboot again .
I felt like I was back on Windows 9x again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Note: Trying not to slashvertise, just sharing some info about a program that's helped me stay secure.
I have no affiliation with Secunia, I just like the tool a lot.
) 
I scan with Secunia's (a Danish computer security company) freeware tool [secunia.com] to check if I have insecure applications.
3 times out of 4, when something has a category 4 or category 5 exploit (e.x.
click2own), it's Adobe Flash Player, Shockwave, AIR, Reader/Acrobat, etc.
It's also interesting because it tells you if your browsers are insecure (due to plugins or the browser itself).
Both IE8 and Chrome are insecure in current versions with all patches.
It was pretty eye opening for me, because I thought that I kept secure, but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner.
I'm always skeptical about getting stuff for free, but I imagine that Secunia uses the data to improve the accuracy of their business software.
To return to the story topic... when possible, use Adobe alternatives (e.x.
Sumatra instead of Adobe Reader) and check your flash player and shockwave player versions at least once a week.
Firefox Users can use Mozilla's plugin check [mozilla.com].
One more thing in my diatribe...recent versions of the Shockwave Player don't update correctly.
I installed the latest version to fix a couple critical vulnerabilities only to find out that it wouldn't reomve the vulnerable files from my system directory.
I had to download the Shockwave uninstaller, reboot my PC, reinstall shockwave, and reboot again.
I felt like I was back on Windows 9x again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173104</id>
	<title>Anyone else catch this typo?</title>
	<author>Kryptonut</author>
	<datestamp>1265052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In 2009, 107 <strong>Abode</strong> vulnerabilities were logged into CVE, nearly double the 58."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In 2009 , 107 Abode vulnerabilities were logged into CVE , nearly double the 58 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In 2009, 107 Abode vulnerabilities were logged into CVE, nearly double the 58.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172810</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful</p></div><p>It's not a question of code being run, it's a question of attack surface.  A properly-designed document format that does few things can be interpreted by simpler code, and thus is less likely to be exploitable for attacks.  PDFs should be proof of this rule by now, given how much of a monstrosity both the spec and Adobe reader are at this point.  See also javascript vulnerabilities in browsers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be usefulIt 's not a question of code being run , it 's a question of attack surface .
A properly-designed document format that does few things can be interpreted by simpler code , and thus is less likely to be exploitable for attacks .
PDFs should be proof of this rule by now , given how much of a monstrosity both the spec and Adobe reader are at this point .
See also javascript vulnerabilities in browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be usefulIt's not a question of code being run, it's a question of attack surface.
A properly-designed document format that does few things can be interpreted by simpler code, and thus is less likely to be exploitable for attacks.
PDFs should be proof of this rule by now, given how much of a monstrosity both the spec and Adobe reader are at this point.
See also javascript vulnerabilities in browsers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170936</id>
	<title>Re:Which PDF viewer?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1265045880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader?<br><br>Sure.  First use pdf2ps to convert it to PostScript, then use other software (e.g., PStill) to convert it to eps, then use Inkscape to convert that to SVG, use Gimp or ImageMagick to rasterize it (e.g., to PNG) and open the result in IrfanView for viewing and printing.  Each step of this operation can be done in a separate virtual machine...</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader ? Sure .
First use pdf2ps to convert it to PostScript , then use other software ( e.g. , PStill ) to convert it to eps , then use Inkscape to convert that to SVG , use Gimp or ImageMagick to rasterize it ( e.g. , to PNG ) and open the result in IrfanView for viewing and printing .
Each step of this operation can be done in a separate virtual machine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader?Sure.
First use pdf2ps to convert it to PostScript, then use other software (e.g., PStill) to convert it to eps, then use Inkscape to convert that to SVG, use Gimp or ImageMagick to rasterize it (e.g., to PNG) and open the result in IrfanView for viewing and printing.
Each step of this operation can be done in a separate virtual machine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169168</id>
	<title>80\% of exploit code or incidents?</title>
	<author>SnuffySmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, as I understand it, this article (and the referenced report) refer to code, not the total number of infections/attacks. It would be useful to know (1) how many computers are affected by PDF attacks, and (2) how many PDFs out there are compromised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as I understand it , this article ( and the referenced report ) refer to code , not the total number of infections/attacks .
It would be useful to know ( 1 ) how many computers are affected by PDF attacks , and ( 2 ) how many PDFs out there are compromised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as I understand it, this article (and the referenced report) refer to code, not the total number of infections/attacks.
It would be useful to know (1) how many computers are affected by PDF attacks, and (2) how many PDFs out there are compromised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174064</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>NotBorg</author>
	<datestamp>1265055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bla bla bla victim of popularity.  Yes you can expect your popular product to be attacked more because of its popularity.  But that doesn't excuse the vendor of fixing it.  The same popularity should (if your business model isn't full of fail) enable you to audit your code and respond to vulnerabilities faster.  The number of attacks are up but so is  your research and development funding.</p><p>The problem is that even though a vendor knows the attacks are coming and often has the resources to head it off, very often the vendor doesn't bother doing anything until just before or very quickly after the bad press happens.</p><p>Expect Adobe's products to be bad for security until they've accumulated enough bad press and then they'll miraculously become much better.  They won't be immune but they'll be on par with unpopular software's security (which is often by obscurity).</p><p><em>Security is not proportional to popularity.</em> If it were than the IE product line would NOT have improved nearly as much as it has.  If it's proportional to anything its proportional to the amount of effort you put into making it secure.  IE got better because there was lots of press that said Firefox is better for your security.</p><p>Same with Windows.  Windows got much better at security even though its popularity didn't change in a significant way.  As a fan boy you must agree that Windows did get better and you also must agree that Windows isn't any less popular. Ergo the popularity==insecure doesn't work well for you.  (Unless you wish to tell me that Windows is still the same insecure pile of crap it always has been.  I'm happy with that.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bla bla bla victim of popularity .
Yes you can expect your popular product to be attacked more because of its popularity .
But that does n't excuse the vendor of fixing it .
The same popularity should ( if your business model is n't full of fail ) enable you to audit your code and respond to vulnerabilities faster .
The number of attacks are up but so is your research and development funding.The problem is that even though a vendor knows the attacks are coming and often has the resources to head it off , very often the vendor does n't bother doing anything until just before or very quickly after the bad press happens.Expect Adobe 's products to be bad for security until they 've accumulated enough bad press and then they 'll miraculously become much better .
They wo n't be immune but they 'll be on par with unpopular software 's security ( which is often by obscurity ) .Security is not proportional to popularity .
If it were than the IE product line would NOT have improved nearly as much as it has .
If it 's proportional to anything its proportional to the amount of effort you put into making it secure .
IE got better because there was lots of press that said Firefox is better for your security.Same with Windows .
Windows got much better at security even though its popularity did n't change in a significant way .
As a fan boy you must agree that Windows did get better and you also must agree that Windows is n't any less popular .
Ergo the popularity = = insecure does n't work well for you .
( Unless you wish to tell me that Windows is still the same insecure pile of crap it always has been .
I 'm happy with that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bla bla bla victim of popularity.
Yes you can expect your popular product to be attacked more because of its popularity.
But that doesn't excuse the vendor of fixing it.
The same popularity should (if your business model isn't full of fail) enable you to audit your code and respond to vulnerabilities faster.
The number of attacks are up but so is  your research and development funding.The problem is that even though a vendor knows the attacks are coming and often has the resources to head it off, very often the vendor doesn't bother doing anything until just before or very quickly after the bad press happens.Expect Adobe's products to be bad for security until they've accumulated enough bad press and then they'll miraculously become much better.
They won't be immune but they'll be on par with unpopular software's security (which is often by obscurity).Security is not proportional to popularity.
If it were than the IE product line would NOT have improved nearly as much as it has.
If it's proportional to anything its proportional to the amount of effort you put into making it secure.
IE got better because there was lots of press that said Firefox is better for your security.Same with Windows.
Windows got much better at security even though its popularity didn't change in a significant way.
As a fan boy you must agree that Windows did get better and you also must agree that Windows isn't any less popular.
Ergo the popularity==insecure doesn't work well for you.
(Unless you wish to tell me that Windows is still the same insecure pile of crap it always has been.
I'm happy with that.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018</id>
	<title>Why does anyone use Adobe reader anymore?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does anyone use adobe reader anymore?</p><p>On Winderz I use foxit, on linux I mostly use kpdf.</p><p>Other than endless exploits, and it seems subjectively to be a bit slower, would I gain anything by using adobe reader?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does anyone use adobe reader anymore ? On Winderz I use foxit , on linux I mostly use kpdf.Other than endless exploits , and it seems subjectively to be a bit slower , would I gain anything by using adobe reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does anyone use adobe reader anymore?On Winderz I use foxit, on linux I mostly use kpdf.Other than endless exploits, and it seems subjectively to be a bit slower, would I gain anything by using adobe reader?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169248</id>
	<title>But does it run in Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run Linux and Mac and people keep telling me that I am missing out on all this great software... so I want to know if I can run these neat new "Rogue PDFs".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run Linux and Mac and people keep telling me that I am missing out on all this great software... so I want to know if I can run these neat new " Rogue PDFs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run Linux and Mac and people keep telling me that I am missing out on all this great software... so I want to know if I can run these neat new "Rogue PDFs".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676</id>
	<title>Because of JavaScript support in Adobe Reader!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have noticed that while web browsing and even when using the currently latest Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7 or 3.6 with Ad-Block Plus and PDF Download add-ons installed I still would get hit with a web page that would automatically push a Adobe Reader PDF file to me and I would have it open automatically.  That PDF would be just a page full of random words but when inspected in Adobe Acrobat in depth when you go into the <b>Advanced \ Document Processing \ Edit All JavaScript...</b> menu you immediately see a script inside the PDF that is launched upon opening that PDF.  When I analyzed the script I saw calls strange calls to the execution functions and methods along with calls to write out encoded data from an array holding hexadecimal values to files.</p><p>With the known exploits in Adobe Reader 9.0 versions and earlier it was easy for me to see why this product was used as a popular attack vector in the last few months for viruses to spread on the Internet.</p><p>Luckily, I use my computer as an ordinary user and use Run As with User Account Control requesting a password for any administrative work and program installation I avoided being infected with these Trojan horse PDFs.</p><p>Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have noticed that while web browsing and even when using the currently latest Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7 or 3.6 with Ad-Block Plus and PDF Download add-ons installed I still would get hit with a web page that would automatically push a Adobe Reader PDF file to me and I would have it open automatically .
That PDF would be just a page full of random words but when inspected in Adobe Acrobat in depth when you go into the Advanced \ Document Processing \ Edit All JavaScript... menu you immediately see a script inside the PDF that is launched upon opening that PDF .
When I analyzed the script I saw calls strange calls to the execution functions and methods along with calls to write out encoded data from an array holding hexadecimal values to files.With the known exploits in Adobe Reader 9.0 versions and earlier it was easy for me to see why this product was used as a popular attack vector in the last few months for viruses to spread on the Internet.Luckily , I use my computer as an ordinary user and use Run As with User Account Control requesting a password for any administrative work and program installation I avoided being infected with these Trojan horse PDFs.Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they 've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have noticed that while web browsing and even when using the currently latest Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7 or 3.6 with Ad-Block Plus and PDF Download add-ons installed I still would get hit with a web page that would automatically push a Adobe Reader PDF file to me and I would have it open automatically.
That PDF would be just a page full of random words but when inspected in Adobe Acrobat in depth when you go into the Advanced \ Document Processing \ Edit All JavaScript... menu you immediately see a script inside the PDF that is launched upon opening that PDF.
When I analyzed the script I saw calls strange calls to the execution functions and methods along with calls to write out encoded data from an array holding hexadecimal values to files.With the known exploits in Adobe Reader 9.0 versions and earlier it was easy for me to see why this product was used as a popular attack vector in the last few months for viruses to spread on the Internet.Luckily, I use my computer as an ordinary user and use Run As with User Account Control requesting a password for any administrative work and program installation I avoided being infected with these Trojan horse PDFs.Some of you might recommend using the Mozilla No Script add-in to block all scripts but the reality is that there is so much JavaScript code out there on the web that turning scripting off makes many web sites unusable since they've all be designed with this reliance on scripting for navigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; The web plugin should be retired and just force the<br>&gt; pdf to open in the full reader. One can dream, right?<br><br>You can actually do this, in the Firefox prefs, under the Applications tab.  (Doing this is on my standard deployment checklist, mainly because it's less confusing for the users.  With the embedded reader plugin, the user doesn't realize they've left the web and doesn't understand why browser features, such as the Print and Print Preview commands, don't work.  When Adobe Reader opens in a separate window, it's somewhat more evident to the untrained eye what's going on.)<br><br>However, if you ever upgrade or reinstall Adobe Reader, it changes the pref back, and you have to fix it again.<br><br>IMO, opening the Reader in a separate window *ought* to be the default setting.  But apparently Adobe feels differently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The web plugin should be retired and just force the &gt; pdf to open in the full reader .
One can dream , right ? You can actually do this , in the Firefox prefs , under the Applications tab .
( Doing this is on my standard deployment checklist , mainly because it 's less confusing for the users .
With the embedded reader plugin , the user does n't realize they 've left the web and does n't understand why browser features , such as the Print and Print Preview commands , do n't work .
When Adobe Reader opens in a separate window , it 's somewhat more evident to the untrained eye what 's going on .
) However , if you ever upgrade or reinstall Adobe Reader , it changes the pref back , and you have to fix it again.IMO , opening the Reader in a separate window * ought * to be the default setting .
But apparently Adobe feels differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The web plugin should be retired and just force the&gt; pdf to open in the full reader.
One can dream, right?You can actually do this, in the Firefox prefs, under the Applications tab.
(Doing this is on my standard deployment checklist, mainly because it's less confusing for the users.
With the embedded reader plugin, the user doesn't realize they've left the web and doesn't understand why browser features, such as the Print and Print Preview commands, don't work.
When Adobe Reader opens in a separate window, it's somewhat more evident to the untrained eye what's going on.
)However, if you ever upgrade or reinstall Adobe Reader, it changes the pref back, and you have to fix it again.IMO, opening the Reader in a separate window *ought* to be the default setting.
But apparently Adobe feels differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172406</id>
	<title>And it's another Windows problem</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1265050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acrobat is cross-platform, but this only affects Windows users in practice - because Mac users use Preview, and Unix users use something Xpdf/GhostScript-derived.</p><p>Solution: FoxitPro. Now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acrobat is cross-platform , but this only affects Windows users in practice - because Mac users use Preview , and Unix users use something Xpdf/GhostScript-derived.Solution : FoxitPro .
Now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acrobat is cross-platform, but this only affects Windows users in practice - because Mac users use Preview, and Unix users use something Xpdf/GhostScript-derived.Solution: FoxitPro.
Now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about "Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market"? Is it really that hard to understand?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market " ?
Is it really that hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market"?
Is it really that hard to understand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169046</id>
	<title>Wider target audience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attacking Adobe Reader means that people who use Firefox are also at risk. For a long while, the popular security paradigm on Windows was that if you used IE you were at risk, but if you kept up with Windows Update and used only Firefox to browse the web you were pretty much safe from the majority of the exploits in the wild. Now that malicious PDFs are out there in force, users of Firefox are vulnerable once again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attacking Adobe Reader means that people who use Firefox are also at risk .
For a long while , the popular security paradigm on Windows was that if you used IE you were at risk , but if you kept up with Windows Update and used only Firefox to browse the web you were pretty much safe from the majority of the exploits in the wild .
Now that malicious PDFs are out there in force , users of Firefox are vulnerable once again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attacking Adobe Reader means that people who use Firefox are also at risk.
For a long while, the popular security paradigm on Windows was that if you used IE you were at risk, but if you kept up with Windows Update and used only Firefox to browse the web you were pretty much safe from the majority of the exploits in the wild.
Now that malicious PDFs are out there in force, users of Firefox are vulnerable once again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31181706</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266487680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader.</i> <br> <br>Where the reader need not be the Adobe mess. It's also annoying when websites moan about the Adobe plugin not being present in the browser. When it's quite literally none of their business how the browser handles PDF files.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader .
Where the reader need not be the Adobe mess .
It 's also annoying when websites moan about the Adobe plugin not being present in the browser .
When it 's quite literally none of their business how the browser handles PDF files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web plugin should be retired and just force the pdf to open in the full reader.
Where the reader need not be the Adobe mess.
It's also annoying when websites moan about the Adobe plugin not being present in the browser.
When it's quite literally none of their business how the browser handles PDF files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170836</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Adobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>running Windows 7 x64 in Firefox</p></div><p>Wow, that's quite impressive! What OS was Firefox running on? Bonus points if it was Linux or Mac.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>running Windows 7 x64 in FirefoxWow , that 's quite impressive !
What OS was Firefox running on ?
Bonus points if it was Linux or Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>running Windows 7 x64 in FirefoxWow, that's quite impressive!
What OS was Firefox running on?
Bonus points if it was Linux or Mac.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168894</id>
	<title>Browser only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I'm seeing, it looks like it's just a problem if you're looking at Adobe documents in a browser; then the browser gets hijacked. So, if you're just looking at a PDF in stand lone Reader, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 'm seeing , it looks like it 's just a problem if you 're looking at Adobe documents in a browser ; then the browser gets hijacked .
So , if you 're just looking at a PDF in stand lone Reader , there should n't be anything to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I'm seeing, it looks like it's just a problem if you're looking at Adobe documents in a browser; then the browser gets hijacked.
So, if you're just looking at a PDF in stand lone Reader, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170684</id>
	<title>Re:Which PDF viewer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Preview.app<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Preview.app : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preview.app :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171558</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone use Adobe reader anymore?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1265047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Primitive how. I use it all the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>You cannot use Foxit on Livecycle forms and other kinds of interactive forms. Foxit doesn't support online commenting and reviewing, Foxit doesn't support 3d annotations (Reader even supports PMI extensions). Yeah Reader is big, but it has a ton of customer requirements.</p><p>Foxit does have security advisories - google it, and its not even a major target.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Primitive how .
I use it all the time.You can not use Foxit on Livecycle forms and other kinds of interactive forms .
Foxit does n't support online commenting and reviewing , Foxit does n't support 3d annotations ( Reader even supports PMI extensions ) .
Yeah Reader is big , but it has a ton of customer requirements.Foxit does have security advisories - google it , and its not even a major target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primitive how.
I use it all the time.You cannot use Foxit on Livecycle forms and other kinds of interactive forms.
Foxit doesn't support online commenting and reviewing, Foxit doesn't support 3d annotations (Reader even supports PMI extensions).
Yeah Reader is big, but it has a ton of customer requirements.Foxit does have security advisories - google it, and its not even a major target.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174244</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very cool tool. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very cool tool .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very cool tool.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169660</id>
	<title>Hard month for Adobe.</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1265041620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First flash is blamed for most application crashes on the Mac. Now PDFs are the number one vector for malicious code in Q4 '09. Hard month for Adobe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First flash is blamed for most application crashes on the Mac .
Now PDFs are the number one vector for malicious code in Q4 '09 .
Hard month for Adobe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First flash is blamed for most application crashes on the Mac.
Now PDFs are the number one vector for malicious code in Q4 '09.
Hard month for Adobe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172004</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1265048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believing any document format to be "inert" is a fallacy. All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful -- a pile of bits on a hard drive is not useful to any human. Whether there are exploitable flaws in the software which interprets the data is only loosely related to the data itself. There have been exploitable bugs in everything from PDF readers to MIME decoders to MP3 players. Obviously, deliberately embedding a scripting language into a document format does not help matters, but don't confuse yourself into believing that some document formats are inherently safer than others. The vulnerability is fundamentally in the software, not the document.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believing any document format to be " inert " is a fallacy .
All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful -- a pile of bits on a hard drive is not useful to any human .
Whether there are exploitable flaws in the software which interprets the data is only loosely related to the data itself .
There have been exploitable bugs in everything from PDF readers to MIME decoders to MP3 players .
Obviously , deliberately embedding a scripting language into a document format does not help matters , but do n't confuse yourself into believing that some document formats are inherently safer than others .
The vulnerability is fundamentally in the software , not the document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believing any document format to be "inert" is a fallacy.
All data must be somehow interpreted by the computer in order to be useful -- a pile of bits on a hard drive is not useful to any human.
Whether there are exploitable flaws in the software which interprets the data is only loosely related to the data itself.
There have been exploitable bugs in everything from PDF readers to MIME decoders to MP3 players.
Obviously, deliberately embedding a scripting language into a document format does not help matters, but don't confuse yourself into believing that some document formats are inherently safer than others.
The vulnerability is fundamentally in the software, not the document.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, the old "Windows is insecure" rant.</p><p>Drive-by installs via exploit vulnerability can happen on any OS. Only thing that might currently mitigate that is SELinux, but it's pain in the ass generally and no casual user would put up with it. Most of the vulnerabilities now a day are in 3rd party softwares like Flash or PDF Reader. <b>They are exactly as vulnerable on any system</b>.</p><p>It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular (and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop).</p><p>Fact is, no OS is secure unless it's completely locked down, and even then there are probably vulnerabilities in the OS. And please, I don't want my desktop computer to be an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the old " Windows is insecure " rant.Drive-by installs via exploit vulnerability can happen on any OS .
Only thing that might currently mitigate that is SELinux , but it 's pain in the ass generally and no casual user would put up with it .
Most of the vulnerabilities now a day are in 3rd party softwares like Flash or PDF Reader .
They are exactly as vulnerable on any system.It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular ( and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop ) .Fact is , no OS is secure unless it 's completely locked down , and even then there are probably vulnerabilities in the OS .
And please , I do n't want my desktop computer to be an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the old "Windows is insecure" rant.Drive-by installs via exploit vulnerability can happen on any OS.
Only thing that might currently mitigate that is SELinux, but it's pain in the ass generally and no casual user would put up with it.
Most of the vulnerabilities now a day are in 3rd party softwares like Flash or PDF Reader.
They are exactly as vulnerable on any system.It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular (and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop).Fact is, no OS is secure unless it's completely locked down, and even then there are probably vulnerabilities in the OS.
And please, I don't want my desktop computer to be an iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174804</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265014800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where is the Code Red for Apache</p></div></blockquote><p>This was certainly an MS issue, the fact that the number of apache INSTALLATIONS is considerably smaller.  The default IIS install having crappy permissions didn't help.  The fact that most of the infections where on client PCs and servers that never should have had IIS installed plays a part in it.  The fact that admins run Apache and are far more likely to keep it up to date than gradma who never installs updates.</p><p>Either way, it is all MSes fault, no doubt about it, Apache has far more experience on the Internet, but its silly to pretend it couldn't happen to Apache.  Its not like its ever happened to anything before, not like anyone has ever trojan sendmail or anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>()patch Tuesday</p><blockquote><div><p>As opposed to 'whenever we feel like, sometimes every day for a week, sometimes nothing for a month'</p><blockquote><div><p>()cannot delete opened file</p><p> Trivial to resolve, and not really any worse than a zombied process</p><p> ()No distinction between administrator and normal user</p></div></blockquote><p>What?  Do you know what permissions are?  WindowsNT held a distinct advantage in ACL support over any free OS for years, and game the commercial unixes a run for their money in some cases.  Do you know what the 'SYSTEM' user is?  Do you know that you don't normally ever have 'root' on a NT machine?  The administrator account is just a user with lots of permissions.  SYSTEM would be the equivalent to root.  This isn't something you even normally get access to, you have to trick the OS into giving you the ability to use the root account.</p><blockquote><div><p>()backward compatibility back to DOS</p></div></blockquote><p>So today its backwards compatible, are we going back to 'Windows breaks compatibility' tomorrow?  First off, it isn't DOS compatible, isn't even close.  NT will run most 'console' apps and some 'DOS' apps, but only those that are very well played DOS apps, essentially those that don't do much more than text processing or basic file OS, no real hardware access or speed tricks.</p><blockquote><div><p> ()GUI in server and for administration tasks</p></div></blockquote><p>I used to feel this was a problem, now days, meh, I don't give a shit.  The RAM and disk space occupied by the GUI is trivial and on most of my servers its such a small percentage I don't give a shit.  Its nice when you can't talk to the machine remotely and still want to run GUI apps however.</p><p>Hell the X libraries are probably installed on all my servers so I can run various other X apps locally with remote display, most of them are running a local X session anyway, just in case I have to actually use the console in a hurry.</p><blockquote><div><p>()whole hard drive is writable</p></div></blockquote><p>Which part is the issue for you?  You don't trust file permissions but you trust a read-only mount?  That seems pretty silly since they are both actualized in the same kernel.  Or are you refering to some other exploit?  Maybe the MBR access, that I could see being a valid complaint, but you were too vague for me to assume you actually had a real reason to bitch</p><blockquote><div><p>()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yea, this can be a pisser.  I've seen people have horrible nightmares dealing with those problems.  Personally I've never had any issue with the config db that prevented me from just using the GUI to do what I wanted.  Maybe corruption has passed me by for now.</p><p>Either way, 90\% of the time, using the GUI and a couple right clicks is still faster than editing httpd.conf in a text editor.  Not always the case, but you're going to be hard pressed to prove that either said is 'faster'  or 'more efficient' using one of the other assuming the person doing it is familiar with the method being used.  Throw someone who's only worked with IIS at httpd.conf and its going to get messy and probably break.  Throw someone who's only worked with apache httpd.conf at IIS and it'll probably be painfully slow, they'll probably not break anything though.</p><p>Summary:<br>To most people, everything you brought up is either 100\% false, incorrect, equally true of both parties or irrelevant to anyone not just trying to come up with a reason why IIS sucks.</p><p>There are plenty of reasons to knock IIS, but you sir are just an ignorant fanboy who hasn't touched a one of them.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the Code Red for ApacheThis was certainly an MS issue , the fact that the number of apache INSTALLATIONS is considerably smaller .
The default IIS install having crappy permissions did n't help .
The fact that most of the infections where on client PCs and servers that never should have had IIS installed plays a part in it .
The fact that admins run Apache and are far more likely to keep it up to date than gradma who never installs updates.Either way , it is all MSes fault , no doubt about it , Apache has far more experience on the Internet , but its silly to pretend it could n't happen to Apache .
Its not like its ever happened to anything before , not like anyone has ever trojan sendmail or anything ... ( ) patch TuesdayAs opposed to 'whenever we feel like , sometimes every day for a week , sometimes nothing for a month ' ( ) can not delete opened file Trivial to resolve , and not really any worse than a zombied process ( ) No distinction between administrator and normal userWhat ?
Do you know what permissions are ?
WindowsNT held a distinct advantage in ACL support over any free OS for years , and game the commercial unixes a run for their money in some cases .
Do you know what the 'SYSTEM ' user is ?
Do you know that you do n't normally ever have 'root ' on a NT machine ?
The administrator account is just a user with lots of permissions .
SYSTEM would be the equivalent to root .
This is n't something you even normally get access to , you have to trick the OS into giving you the ability to use the root account .
( ) backward compatibility back to DOSSo today its backwards compatible , are we going back to 'Windows breaks compatibility ' tomorrow ?
First off , it is n't DOS compatible , is n't even close .
NT will run most 'console ' apps and some 'DOS ' apps , but only those that are very well played DOS apps , essentially those that do n't do much more than text processing or basic file OS , no real hardware access or speed tricks .
( ) GUI in server and for administration tasksI used to feel this was a problem , now days , meh , I do n't give a shit .
The RAM and disk space occupied by the GUI is trivial and on most of my servers its such a small percentage I do n't give a shit .
Its nice when you ca n't talk to the machine remotely and still want to run GUI apps however.Hell the X libraries are probably installed on all my servers so I can run various other X apps locally with remote display , most of them are running a local X session anyway , just in case I have to actually use the console in a hurry .
( ) whole hard drive is writableWhich part is the issue for you ?
You do n't trust file permissions but you trust a read-only mount ?
That seems pretty silly since they are both actualized in the same kernel .
Or are you refering to some other exploit ?
Maybe the MBR access , that I could see being a valid complaint , but you were too vague for me to assume you actually had a real reason to bitch ( ) complex database for configuration and the list goes on.Yea , this can be a pisser .
I 've seen people have horrible nightmares dealing with those problems .
Personally I 've never had any issue with the config db that prevented me from just using the GUI to do what I wanted .
Maybe corruption has passed me by for now.Either way , 90 \ % of the time , using the GUI and a couple right clicks is still faster than editing httpd.conf in a text editor .
Not always the case , but you 're going to be hard pressed to prove that either said is 'faster ' or 'more efficient ' using one of the other assuming the person doing it is familiar with the method being used .
Throw someone who 's only worked with IIS at httpd.conf and its going to get messy and probably break .
Throw someone who 's only worked with apache httpd.conf at IIS and it 'll probably be painfully slow , they 'll probably not break anything though.Summary : To most people , everything you brought up is either 100 \ % false , incorrect , equally true of both parties or irrelevant to anyone not just trying to come up with a reason why IIS sucks.There are plenty of reasons to knock IIS , but you sir are just an ignorant fanboy who has n't touched a one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the Code Red for ApacheThis was certainly an MS issue, the fact that the number of apache INSTALLATIONS is considerably smaller.
The default IIS install having crappy permissions didn't help.
The fact that most of the infections where on client PCs and servers that never should have had IIS installed plays a part in it.
The fact that admins run Apache and are far more likely to keep it up to date than gradma who never installs updates.Either way, it is all MSes fault, no doubt about it, Apache has far more experience on the Internet, but its silly to pretend it couldn't happen to Apache.
Its not like its ever happened to anything before, not like anyone has ever trojan sendmail or anything ...()patch TuesdayAs opposed to 'whenever we feel like, sometimes every day for a week, sometimes nothing for a month'()cannot delete opened file Trivial to resolve, and not really any worse than a zombied process ()No distinction between administrator and normal userWhat?
Do you know what permissions are?
WindowsNT held a distinct advantage in ACL support over any free OS for years, and game the commercial unixes a run for their money in some cases.
Do you know what the 'SYSTEM' user is?
Do you know that you don't normally ever have 'root' on a NT machine?
The administrator account is just a user with lots of permissions.
SYSTEM would be the equivalent to root.
This isn't something you even normally get access to, you have to trick the OS into giving you the ability to use the root account.
()backward compatibility back to DOSSo today its backwards compatible, are we going back to 'Windows breaks compatibility' tomorrow?
First off, it isn't DOS compatible, isn't even close.
NT will run most 'console' apps and some 'DOS' apps, but only those that are very well played DOS apps, essentially those that don't do much more than text processing or basic file OS, no real hardware access or speed tricks.
()GUI in server and for administration tasksI used to feel this was a problem, now days, meh, I don't give a shit.
The RAM and disk space occupied by the GUI is trivial and on most of my servers its such a small percentage I don't give a shit.
Its nice when you can't talk to the machine remotely and still want to run GUI apps however.Hell the X libraries are probably installed on all my servers so I can run various other X apps locally with remote display, most of them are running a local X session anyway, just in case I have to actually use the console in a hurry.
()whole hard drive is writableWhich part is the issue for you?
You don't trust file permissions but you trust a read-only mount?
That seems pretty silly since they are both actualized in the same kernel.
Or are you refering to some other exploit?
Maybe the MBR access, that I could see being a valid complaint, but you were too vague for me to assume you actually had a real reason to bitch()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.Yea, this can be a pisser.
I've seen people have horrible nightmares dealing with those problems.
Personally I've never had any issue with the config db that prevented me from just using the GUI to do what I wanted.
Maybe corruption has passed me by for now.Either way, 90\% of the time, using the GUI and a couple right clicks is still faster than editing httpd.conf in a text editor.
Not always the case, but you're going to be hard pressed to prove that either said is 'faster'  or 'more efficient' using one of the other assuming the person doing it is familiar with the method being used.
Throw someone who's only worked with IIS at httpd.conf and its going to get messy and probably break.
Throw someone who's only worked with apache httpd.conf at IIS and it'll probably be painfully slow, they'll probably not break anything though.Summary:To most people, everything you brought up is either 100\% false, incorrect, equally true of both parties or irrelevant to anyone not just trying to come up with a reason why IIS sucks.There are plenty of reasons to knock IIS, but you sir are just an ignorant fanboy who hasn't touched a one of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170740</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(Note: Trying not to slashvertise, just sharing some info about a program that's helped me stay secure. I have no affiliation with Secunia, I just like the tool a lot.)<br></i><br>Nonsense, I have no affiliation with Microsoft, but in my experisnce they make the most secure software on the planet. Their programs are all stellar and don't need your Secunia.</p><p>*throws chair*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Note : Trying not to slashvertise , just sharing some info about a program that 's helped me stay secure .
I have no affiliation with Secunia , I just like the tool a lot .
) Nonsense , I have no affiliation with Microsoft , but in my experisnce they make the most secure software on the planet .
Their programs are all stellar and do n't need your Secunia .
* throws chair *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Note: Trying not to slashvertise, just sharing some info about a program that's helped me stay secure.
I have no affiliation with Secunia, I just like the tool a lot.
)Nonsense, I have no affiliation with Microsoft, but in my experisnce they make the most secure software on the planet.
Their programs are all stellar and don't need your Secunia.
*throws chair*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169386</id>
	<title>It isn't "I want some of that too"</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the attacker arena, they might be thinking, 'Gee, all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days, maybe I should get in on them too.</p></div><p>It isn't that. It is the fact that some of the holes took so long to have patches released, so people who don't read techie news (so didn't know to turn Javascript off in the case of those holes in that area) we vulnerable for some time even once the flaw was "publicly" known. This gave crackers time to throw together a "me too!" exploit for the same bug, and encouraged them to keep looking at the platform (if a hole, once found, stays open for some time then the effort is more worth it than looking for a hole on a platform where security patches are released in a more timely fashion).</p><p>The other advantage of attacking Adobe's PDF reader is, as with Flash and other cross-browser plug-ins, one of target audience size. A successful attack may affect users of multiple browsers rather than, for example, just those who run a particular version of IE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the attacker arena , they might be thinking , 'Gee , all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days , maybe I should get in on them too.It is n't that .
It is the fact that some of the holes took so long to have patches released , so people who do n't read techie news ( so did n't know to turn Javascript off in the case of those holes in that area ) we vulnerable for some time even once the flaw was " publicly " known .
This gave crackers time to throw together a " me too !
" exploit for the same bug , and encouraged them to keep looking at the platform ( if a hole , once found , stays open for some time then the effort is more worth it than looking for a hole on a platform where security patches are released in a more timely fashion ) .The other advantage of attacking Adobe 's PDF reader is , as with Flash and other cross-browser plug-ins , one of target audience size .
A successful attack may affect users of multiple browsers rather than , for example , just those who run a particular version of IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the attacker arena, they might be thinking, 'Gee, all these reports of Adobe Reader zero-days, maybe I should get in on them too.It isn't that.
It is the fact that some of the holes took so long to have patches released, so people who don't read techie news (so didn't know to turn Javascript off in the case of those holes in that area) we vulnerable for some time even once the flaw was "publicly" known.
This gave crackers time to throw together a "me too!
" exploit for the same bug, and encouraged them to keep looking at the platform (if a hole, once found, stays open for some time then the effort is more worth it than looking for a hole on a platform where security patches are released in a more timely fashion).The other advantage of attacking Adobe's PDF reader is, as with Flash and other cross-browser plug-ins, one of target audience size.
A successful attack may affect users of multiple browsers rather than, for example, just those who run a particular version of IE.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I beg to differ.<br>
<a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/" title="foxitsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">Foxit Software's Reader</a> [foxitsoftware.com] is pretty well known now, and has been mentioned on Slashdot numerous times over the past year or so, when there's been articles involving PDF's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ .
Foxit Software 's Reader [ foxitsoftware.com ] is pretty well known now , and has been mentioned on Slashdot numerous times over the past year or so , when there 's been articles involving PDF 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ.
Foxit Software's Reader [foxitsoftware.com] is pretty well known now, and has been mentioned on Slashdot numerous times over the past year or so, when there's been articles involving PDF's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169430</id>
	<title>Re:Should PDFs be dangerous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use an alternative viewer.</p><p>Then turn off javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use an alternative viewer.Then turn off javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use an alternative viewer.Then turn off javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169484</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone use Adobe reader anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Primitive how. I use it all the time. I put it on all the computers in the company. It is small, fast and secure. I have never had a problem opening, reading or printing a PDF file. When doing those things it is in fact superior to Adobe reader everytime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Primitive how .
I use it all the time .
I put it on all the computers in the company .
It is small , fast and secure .
I have never had a problem opening , reading or printing a PDF file .
When doing those things it is in fact superior to Adobe reader everytime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primitive how.
I use it all the time.
I put it on all the computers in the company.
It is small, fast and secure.
I have never had a problem opening, reading or printing a PDF file.
When doing those things it is in fact superior to Adobe reader everytime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</id>
	<title>Or more likely</title>
	<author>FreeUser</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about "Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market"? Is it really that hard to understand?</i></p><p>Or how about:</p><p>"Adobe Reader is shit.  Zero day exploits are like shooting ducks in a barrel."  Or maybe "It's the platform, and Adobe is just the vector de jour.  IE was last months, Office the month before that, and Flash (or something equally widespread, complex, superfulous and buggh) is next month's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason, and Adobe can only take some small credit for their contribution to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market " ?
Is it really that hard to understand ? Or how about : " Adobe Reader is shit .
Zero day exploits are like shooting ducks in a barrel .
" Or maybe " It 's the platform , and Adobe is just the vector de jour .
IE was last months , Office the month before that , and Flash ( or something equally widespread , complex , superfulous and buggh ) is next month 's ... " Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason , and Adobe can only take some small credit for their contribution to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "Adobe Reader is the only relevant PDF reader on the market"?
Is it really that hard to understand?Or how about:"Adobe Reader is shit.
Zero day exploits are like shooting ducks in a barrel.
"  Or maybe "It's the platform, and Adobe is just the vector de jour.
IE was last months, Office the month before that, and Flash (or something equally widespread, complex, superfulous and buggh) is next month's ..."Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason, and Adobe can only take some small credit for their contribution to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177096</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>toadlife</author>
	<datestamp>1265023080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving aside your ridiculous invocation of a ten year old worm for IIS, you do realize since the release of IIS6 in 2003, <b>IIS6 and IIS7 have had FAR FEWER vulnerabilities discovered than any version of Apache</b>, right?</p><p>The rest of your rant is evidence you don't seem to have a very good grasp of how Windows works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving aside your ridiculous invocation of a ten year old worm for IIS , you do realize since the release of IIS6 in 2003 , IIS6 and IIS7 have had FAR FEWER vulnerabilities discovered than any version of Apache , right ? The rest of your rant is evidence you do n't seem to have a very good grasp of how Windows works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving aside your ridiculous invocation of a ten year old worm for IIS, you do realize since the release of IIS6 in 2003, IIS6 and IIS7 have had FAR FEWER vulnerabilities discovered than any version of Apache, right?The rest of your rant is evidence you don't seem to have a very good grasp of how Windows works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169058</id>
	<title>Two simple safeguards that help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) Configure your web browser so it asks you to download pdf files instead of opening them automatically.</p><p>b) Use an alternative PDF reader/viewer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Configure your web browser so it asks you to download pdf files instead of opening them automatically.b ) Use an alternative PDF reader/viewer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) Configure your web browser so it asks you to download pdf files instead of opening them automatically.b) Use an alternative PDF reader/viewer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994</id>
	<title>Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason for the PDF preference is not "me too". It is, simply, the best current trojan delivery vehicle. I send my CV in PDF format, most of the documents that I deal with are in PDF format.</p><p>And I have no way of telling if opening a particular PDF in a particular reader will cause an exploit.</p><p>Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed. Microsoft Word has been "hardened". The exploits are going for the weakest part -- output that is in a universal format and is commonly shared. That just happens to have one reader that has most of the market share.</p><p>Which means that I will continue to use "Evince" and hope that it won't be targeted soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for the PDF preference is not " me too " .
It is , simply , the best current trojan delivery vehicle .
I send my CV in PDF format , most of the documents that I deal with are in PDF format.And I have no way of telling if opening a particular PDF in a particular reader will cause an exploit.Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs , and can open " ZIP " files to determine if an EXE is enclosed .
Microsoft Word has been " hardened " .
The exploits are going for the weakest part -- output that is in a universal format and is commonly shared .
That just happens to have one reader that has most of the market share.Which means that I will continue to use " Evince " and hope that it wo n't be targeted soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for the PDF preference is not "me too".
It is, simply, the best current trojan delivery vehicle.
I send my CV in PDF format, most of the documents that I deal with are in PDF format.And I have no way of telling if opening a particular PDF in a particular reader will cause an exploit.Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed.
Microsoft Word has been "hardened".
The exploits are going for the weakest part -- output that is in a universal format and is commonly shared.
That just happens to have one reader that has most of the market share.Which means that I will continue to use "Evince" and hope that it won't be targeted soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170380</id>
	<title>Re:Which PDF viewer?</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1265044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering the same thing myself. I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader. My instincts tell me that I'm safer because it doesn't have all of the integration (java etc) but I'd love to see some comparisons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering the same thing myself .
I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader .
My instincts tell me that I 'm safer because it does n't have all of the integration ( java etc ) but I 'd love to see some comparisons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering the same thing myself.
I use Sumatra instead which is a far more stripped down reader.
My instincts tell me that I'm safer because it doesn't have all of the integration (java etc) but I'd love to see some comparisons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177264</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>posted your comment on my facebook. thanks for the links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>posted your comment on my facebook .
thanks for the links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>posted your comment on my facebook.
thanks for the links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169314</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>SnuffySmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was one of the ones, many years ago, that was frustrated that PDFs didn't do more. Now I only want to use PDFs to deliver documents that have content that can't be altered, and print out like I well expect them too. I repent of my former desire that PDFs do stuff.<br> <br>

Unless of course, ooh cool, Adobe came up with a killer app by combining PDF and Flash in to one thing.  Have they already done this? Have I missed the boat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was one of the ones , many years ago , that was frustrated that PDFs did n't do more .
Now I only want to use PDFs to deliver documents that have content that ca n't be altered , and print out like I well expect them too .
I repent of my former desire that PDFs do stuff .
Unless of course , ooh cool , Adobe came up with a killer app by combining PDF and Flash in to one thing .
Have they already done this ?
Have I missed the boat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was one of the ones, many years ago, that was frustrated that PDFs didn't do more.
Now I only want to use PDFs to deliver documents that have content that can't be altered, and print out like I well expect them too.
I repent of my former desire that PDFs do stuff.
Unless of course, ooh cool, Adobe came up with a killer app by combining PDF and Flash in to one thing.
Have they already done this?
Have I missed the boat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31202546</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1266611040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason," - Freeuser</p><p>I'm strongly tempted to use that as my sig.  Road-kill, or the smell of piss in the subway?  Tough decision . . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason , " - FreeuserI 'm strongly tempted to use that as my sig .
Road-kill , or the smell of piss in the subway ?
Tough decision .
. .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason," - FreeuserI'm strongly tempted to use that as my sig.
Road-kill, or the smell of piss in the subway?
Tough decision .
. .
.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31176340</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1265020020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents. We have a well-established convention of distinguishing "documents" from "applications"; "documents" are passive collections of information, whereas "applications" do stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>You are making the "keep the code separate from the data!" argument.  You forget the one place in every application where code and data intermingle: the stack.
</p><p>There is no getting around the stack.  It is itself data about what code to execute next.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents .
We have a well-established convention of distinguishing " documents " from " applications " ; " documents " are passive collections of information , whereas " applications " do stuff.You are making the " keep the code separate from the data !
" argument .
You forget the one place in every application where code and data intermingle : the stack .
There is no getting around the stack .
It is itself data about what code to execute next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And IMO this is exactly why everyone should be wary of putting scripting languages into documents.
We have a well-established convention of distinguishing "documents" from "applications"; "documents" are passive collections of information, whereas "applications" do stuff.You are making the "keep the code separate from the data!
" argument.
You forget the one place in every application where code and data intermingle: the stack.
There is no getting around the stack.
It is itself data about what code to execute next.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169254</id>
	<title>Re:Two solutions.</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or use foxit reader ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or use foxit reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or use foxit reader ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170794</id>
	<title>Ubiquity...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265045460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They target Adobe's PDF reader because it is extremely widespread, most users don't even realise PDF is a standard and that other readers exist... They think it's a proprietary format only supported by a single program.<br>As a consequence, virtually every potential victim will be running exactly the same code, or a small subset of possible versions making them a very easy target.<br>Also Adobe's software hasn't been attacked much before, and therefore is likely to have many more undiscovered bugs.</p><p>This is also the reason IE is generally targeted less, now that other browsers are taking significant market share away, except in corporate deployments (where the recent attacks on google proved that targeting IE is still an effective strategy).</p><p>Also, most malware filters permit PDF files through..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They target Adobe 's PDF reader because it is extremely widespread , most users do n't even realise PDF is a standard and that other readers exist... They think it 's a proprietary format only supported by a single program.As a consequence , virtually every potential victim will be running exactly the same code , or a small subset of possible versions making them a very easy target.Also Adobe 's software has n't been attacked much before , and therefore is likely to have many more undiscovered bugs.This is also the reason IE is generally targeted less , now that other browsers are taking significant market share away , except in corporate deployments ( where the recent attacks on google proved that targeting IE is still an effective strategy ) .Also , most malware filters permit PDF files through. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They target Adobe's PDF reader because it is extremely widespread, most users don't even realise PDF is a standard and that other readers exist... They think it's a proprietary format only supported by a single program.As a consequence, virtually every potential victim will be running exactly the same code, or a small subset of possible versions making them a very easy target.Also Adobe's software hasn't been attacked much before, and therefore is likely to have many more undiscovered bugs.This is also the reason IE is generally targeted less, now that other browsers are taking significant market share away, except in corporate deployments (where the recent attacks on google proved that targeting IE is still an effective strategy).Also, most malware filters permit PDF files through..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170066</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/security.htm" title="foxitsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">Their product is a nice vector, too.</a> [foxitsoftware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their product is a nice vector , too .
[ foxitsoftware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their product is a nice vector, too.
[foxitsoftware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966</id>
	<title>What about alternate readers?</title>
	<author>Monoman</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the problem with the Adobe Reader program itself or the file format?  Do third party PDF readers have the same security issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the problem with the Adobe Reader program itself or the file format ?
Do third party PDF readers have the same security issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the problem with the Adobe Reader program itself or the file format?
Do third party PDF readers have the same security issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169338</id>
	<title>Re:What about alternate readers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The official PDF spec includes scripting and DRM and all kinds of other crap that 99.99\% of pdfs don't use.  Many 3rd party readers limit themselves to just displaying documents, so the third party readers are have a much smaller surface area of attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The official PDF spec includes scripting and DRM and all kinds of other crap that 99.99 \ % of pdfs do n't use .
Many 3rd party readers limit themselves to just displaying documents , so the third party readers are have a much smaller surface area of attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The official PDF spec includes scripting and DRM and all kinds of other crap that 99.99\% of pdfs don't use.
Many 3rd party readers limit themselves to just displaying documents, so the third party readers are have a much smaller surface area of attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842</id>
	<title>Which PDF viewer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm using Foxit Reader right now, but after hearing about vulnerabilities similar to Adobe I'm reviewing my options.

<br> <br>Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using Foxit Reader right now , but after hearing about vulnerabilities similar to Adobe I 'm reviewing my options .
Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using Foxit Reader right now, but after hearing about vulnerabilities similar to Adobe I'm reviewing my options.
Anyone have some suggestions for a more secure PDF reader?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170832</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>sneaker98</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't defend them. Adobe is one of the worst bloatware software companies on the planet. They deserve this flak.

Frankly, when my browser locks up, guess what program is almost always to blame? Adbobe Reader. What a piece of crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't defend them .
Adobe is one of the worst bloatware software companies on the planet .
They deserve this flak .
Frankly , when my browser locks up , guess what program is almost always to blame ?
Adbobe Reader .
What a piece of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't defend them.
Adobe is one of the worst bloatware software companies on the planet.
They deserve this flak.
Frankly, when my browser locks up, guess what program is almost always to blame?
Adbobe Reader.
What a piece of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174124</id>
	<title>Re:Because of JavaScript support in Adobe Reader!</title>
	<author>downhole</author>
	<datestamp>1265055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice part about NoScript is the selective script blocking. With just the browser on its own, you can only turn JavaScript on entirely or off entirely. NoScript lets you turn on JavaScripts from the domains of the site that you're browsing, and block all others, like the dozens of scripts from all of the ads doing God knows what. Like on Slashdot, I can allow slashdot.org so that the threads all show up right, and still have the other scripts, reportedly from fsdn.com and doubleclick.net, blocked. You can block everything by default, and if you go to a page that doesn't work well enough, start enabling scripts until it works right while still blocking all of the nasty and annoying stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice part about NoScript is the selective script blocking .
With just the browser on its own , you can only turn JavaScript on entirely or off entirely .
NoScript lets you turn on JavaScripts from the domains of the site that you 're browsing , and block all others , like the dozens of scripts from all of the ads doing God knows what .
Like on Slashdot , I can allow slashdot.org so that the threads all show up right , and still have the other scripts , reportedly from fsdn.com and doubleclick.net , blocked .
You can block everything by default , and if you go to a page that does n't work well enough , start enabling scripts until it works right while still blocking all of the nasty and annoying stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice part about NoScript is the selective script blocking.
With just the browser on its own, you can only turn JavaScript on entirely or off entirely.
NoScript lets you turn on JavaScripts from the domains of the site that you're browsing, and block all others, like the dozens of scripts from all of the ads doing God knows what.
Like on Slashdot, I can allow slashdot.org so that the threads all show up right, and still have the other scripts, reportedly from fsdn.com and doubleclick.net, blocked.
You can block everything by default, and if you go to a page that doesn't work well enough, start enabling scripts until it works right while still blocking all of the nasty and annoying stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171162</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone use Adobe reader anymore?</title>
	<author>asvravi</author>
	<datestamp>1265046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had problems viewing documents with complex formatting and embedded Chinese fonts on Foxit. Returned to Adobe. It is easy to miss some information in the document without even realizing it, if the reader sacrifices functionality in favor of being lightweight. I would any day prefer fidelity to the PDF spec over being lightweight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had problems viewing documents with complex formatting and embedded Chinese fonts on Foxit .
Returned to Adobe .
It is easy to miss some information in the document without even realizing it , if the reader sacrifices functionality in favor of being lightweight .
I would any day prefer fidelity to the PDF spec over being lightweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had problems viewing documents with complex formatting and embedded Chinese fonts on Foxit.
Returned to Adobe.
It is easy to miss some information in the document without even realizing it, if the reader sacrifices functionality in favor of being lightweight.
I would any day prefer fidelity to the PDF spec over being lightweight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172186</id>
	<title>gentlemen the time is now.</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we can no longer wait while this threat emerges, it is time for us all to purchase ScanSafe(c) and renew contracts regularly and indefinitely to their fullest.  may there be no further discussion of alternative readers, operating systems, or patches and repairs that could be made.  This report clearly outlines the repercussions of using the PDF format in that it is an unholy vessel by which godless demons infest your small business and personal computer to rape the data within.  Only through the glory of ScanSafe may you truly be at ease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we can no longer wait while this threat emerges , it is time for us all to purchase ScanSafe ( c ) and renew contracts regularly and indefinitely to their fullest .
may there be no further discussion of alternative readers , operating systems , or patches and repairs that could be made .
This report clearly outlines the repercussions of using the PDF format in that it is an unholy vessel by which godless demons infest your small business and personal computer to rape the data within .
Only through the glory of ScanSafe may you truly be at ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can no longer wait while this threat emerges, it is time for us all to purchase ScanSafe(c) and renew contracts regularly and indefinitely to their fullest.
may there be no further discussion of alternative readers, operating systems, or patches and repairs that could be made.
This report clearly outlines the repercussions of using the PDF format in that it is an unholy vessel by which godless demons infest your small business and personal computer to rape the data within.
Only through the glory of ScanSafe may you truly be at ease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171518</id>
	<title>Re:Should PDFs be dangerous?</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1265047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never, ever install the PDF plug-in, for any browser. They are slow as hell and open up security issues.
Always open PDF files with a stand alone program and for added security make sure it ain't Adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never , ever install the PDF plug-in , for any browser .
They are slow as hell and open up security issues .
Always open PDF files with a stand alone program and for added security make sure it ai n't Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never, ever install the PDF plug-in, for any browser.
They are slow as hell and open up security issues.
Always open PDF files with a stand alone program and for added security make sure it ain't Adobe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170694</id>
	<title>Javascript in PDFs? How dumb is Adobe?</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As another poster pointed out: including scripting capabilities in "static" documents is just dumb. We've already been through this a few years ago, with people sending around Microsoft Office documents.

</p><p>Microsoft "fixed" this, in the sense that Office now warns you if a document contains scripting. Better, of course, is that many people have learned not to send or accept such documents in the first place. This was part of what made PDFs popular: a format to send documents that (a) cannot easily be changed and (b) is not a security risk. Millions of business documents are sent as PDFs just for these reasons.

</p><p>How stupid must Adobe be, to open themselves to this kind of attack. There should be no scripting in PDF documents. Alternatively - second best - scriptiing should be disabled by default, unless the user specifically authorizes it (as with Microsoft Office documents).

</p><p>Bad Adobe, no donut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As another poster pointed out : including scripting capabilities in " static " documents is just dumb .
We 've already been through this a few years ago , with people sending around Microsoft Office documents .
Microsoft " fixed " this , in the sense that Office now warns you if a document contains scripting .
Better , of course , is that many people have learned not to send or accept such documents in the first place .
This was part of what made PDFs popular : a format to send documents that ( a ) can not easily be changed and ( b ) is not a security risk .
Millions of business documents are sent as PDFs just for these reasons .
How stupid must Adobe be , to open themselves to this kind of attack .
There should be no scripting in PDF documents .
Alternatively - second best - scriptiing should be disabled by default , unless the user specifically authorizes it ( as with Microsoft Office documents ) .
Bad Adobe , no donut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another poster pointed out: including scripting capabilities in "static" documents is just dumb.
We've already been through this a few years ago, with people sending around Microsoft Office documents.
Microsoft "fixed" this, in the sense that Office now warns you if a document contains scripting.
Better, of course, is that many people have learned not to send or accept such documents in the first place.
This was part of what made PDFs popular: a format to send documents that (a) cannot easily be changed and (b) is not a security risk.
Millions of business documents are sent as PDFs just for these reasons.
How stupid must Adobe be, to open themselves to this kind of attack.
There should be no scripting in PDF documents.
Alternatively - second best - scriptiing should be disabled by default, unless the user specifically authorizes it (as with Microsoft Office documents).
Bad Adobe, no donut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168834</id>
	<title>yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..do they run on evince?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..do they run on evince ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..do they run on evince?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180138</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Security is not proportional to popularity.</i>
</p><p>Frequency and consequences of exploitation (which is what people here generally mean when they say "security"), however, is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is not proportional to popularity .
Frequency and consequences of exploitation ( which is what people here generally mean when they say " security " ) , however , is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Security is not proportional to popularity.
Frequency and consequences of exploitation (which is what people here generally mean when they say "security"), however, is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170748</id>
	<title>Re:What about alternate readers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good not know. I've long suggested other readers anyway, since many "print" to PDF and don't have the same heavy-handed DRM aspects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good not know .
I 've long suggested other readers anyway , since many " print " to PDF and do n't have the same heavy-handed DRM aspects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good not know.
I've long suggested other readers anyway, since many "print" to PDF and don't have the same heavy-handed DRM aspects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169298</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shut it mac user</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shut it mac user</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shut it mac user</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848</id>
	<title>Should PDFs be dangerous?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much danger am I in once javascript is turned off for Adobe's pdf reader?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much danger am I in once javascript is turned off for Adobe 's pdf reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much danger am I in once javascript is turned off for Adobe's pdf reader?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175510</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>GoatEnigma</author>
	<datestamp>1265017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason....</p></div><p>Seriously though, no one says that.  No one even says "Information Superhighway".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason....Seriously though , no one says that .
No one even says " Information Superhighway " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Windows users are known as the road-kill of the Information Superhighway for a reason....Seriously though, no one says that.
No one even says "Information Superhighway".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168788</id>
	<title>Two solutions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.) Spend millions of dollars on R&amp;D for a new pdf analyzer and redistribute it.<br>2.) Turn off javascript and any other dynamic content.</p><p>We all know option 2 is way too easy, so we'll just go with the first one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Spend millions of dollars on R&amp;D for a new pdf analyzer and redistribute it.2 .
) Turn off javascript and any other dynamic content.We all know option 2 is way too easy , so we 'll just go with the first one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) Spend millions of dollars on R&amp;D for a new pdf analyzer and redistribute it.2.
) Turn off javascript and any other dynamic content.We all know option 2 is way too easy, so we'll just go with the first one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169164</id>
	<title>Re:Why does anyone use Adobe reader anymore?</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1265039880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it works? Adobe reader may be bloated, but Foxit is primitive. KPDF has issues when printing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it works ?
Adobe reader may be bloated , but Foxit is primitive .
KPDF has issues when printing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it works?
Adobe reader may be bloated, but Foxit is primitive.
KPDF has issues when printing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550</id>
	<title>Not just Adobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a trojan yesterday through a PDF, while using Foxit and running Windows 7 x64 in Firefox.  I didn't think anything of allowing a website to execute a PDF file (I was not aware at the time that you could execute code through a PDF).</p><p>The trojan downloaded quite a bit of malware onto my system that I spent last night cleaning from the registry.  This is the first time I've gotten malware on my computer in years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a trojan yesterday through a PDF , while using Foxit and running Windows 7 x64 in Firefox .
I did n't think anything of allowing a website to execute a PDF file ( I was not aware at the time that you could execute code through a PDF ) .The trojan downloaded quite a bit of malware onto my system that I spent last night cleaning from the registry .
This is the first time I 've gotten malware on my computer in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a trojan yesterday through a PDF, while using Foxit and running Windows 7 x64 in Firefox.
I didn't think anything of allowing a website to execute a PDF file (I was not aware at the time that you could execute code through a PDF).The trojan downloaded quite a bit of malware onto my system that I spent last night cleaning from the registry.
This is the first time I've gotten malware on my computer in years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170854</id>
	<title>Re:Me too? NOT</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1265045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does a document viewer need to run code (javascript of whatever)</p><p>99.99\% of people use it to display and/or print static documents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... it's only that Adobe keep extending it to do thing outside this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>The core view a PDF is fairly bug free and exploit free it is the extensions that are buggy and vunerable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does a document viewer need to run code ( javascript of whatever ) 99.99 \ % of people use it to display and/or print static documents .... it 's only that Adobe keep extending it to do thing outside this ....The core view a PDF is fairly bug free and exploit free it is the extensions that are buggy and vunerable ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does a document viewer need to run code (javascript of whatever)99.99\% of people use it to display and/or print static documents .... it's only that Adobe keep extending it to do thing outside this ....The core view a PDF is fairly bug free and exploit free it is the extensions that are buggy and vunerable ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177548</id>
	<title>There are several steps to lock down Adobe Reader</title>
	<author>WD</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This US-CERT vulnerability note has details for steps for making Adobe Reader safe to use:<br><a href="http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/508357" title="cert.org">http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/508357</a> [cert.org]</p><p>As you mentioned, disabling JavaScript helps.  But you can also prevent PDFs from opening automatically with the plug-in, and also prevent them from opening automatically with the stand-alone reader.   There are some other mitigations there as well.</p><p>Of course, this all requires manual configuration.   There is no hope for the average home user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This US-CERT vulnerability note has details for steps for making Adobe Reader safe to use : http : //www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/508357 [ cert.org ] As you mentioned , disabling JavaScript helps .
But you can also prevent PDFs from opening automatically with the plug-in , and also prevent them from opening automatically with the stand-alone reader .
There are some other mitigations there as well.Of course , this all requires manual configuration .
There is no hope for the average home user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This US-CERT vulnerability note has details for steps for making Adobe Reader safe to use:http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/508357 [cert.org]As you mentioned, disabling JavaScript helps.
But you can also prevent PDFs from opening automatically with the plug-in, and also prevent them from opening automatically with the stand-alone reader.
There are some other mitigations there as well.Of course, this all requires manual configuration.
There is no hope for the average home user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169102</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1265039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably because, based on UI, speed, size, sheer awkwardness and oddball behavior (does it still act like you're doing a reinstall when you change a config option?), Acrobat consists mostly of unmaintainable spaghetti code - leaving it full of potential exploits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because , based on UI , speed , size , sheer awkwardness and oddball behavior ( does it still act like you 're doing a reinstall when you change a config option ?
) , Acrobat consists mostly of unmaintainable spaghetti code - leaving it full of potential exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because, based on UI, speed, size, sheer awkwardness and oddball behavior (does it still act like you're doing a reinstall when you change a config option?
), Acrobat consists mostly of unmaintainable spaghetti code - leaving it full of potential exploits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169116</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about "We don't need a stinkin' Adobe Reader on non-Windows platforms"? Is it really that hard to understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " We do n't need a stinkin ' Adobe Reader on non-Windows platforms " ?
Is it really that hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "We don't need a stinkin' Adobe Reader on non-Windows platforms"?
Is it really that hard to understand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172184</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe is a security nightmare</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1265049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It was pretty eye opening for me, because I thought that I kept secure, but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you run with administrator privileges? You're not secure if you do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was pretty eye opening for me , because I thought that I kept secure , but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner.Do you run with administrator privileges ?
You 're not secure if you do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was pretty eye opening for me, because I thought that I kept secure, but I had 20 insecure applications when I first got the scanner.Do you run with administrator privileges?
You're not secure if you do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31224454</id>
	<title>Re:What about alternate readers?</title>
	<author>theseus75</author>
	<datestamp>1266763140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just posted a how-to screencast after reading this story so people can find and use alternatives.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wuwqPN4kxg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wuwqPN4kxg</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just posted a how-to screencast after reading this story so people can find and use alternatives .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6wuwqPN4kxg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just posted a how-to screencast after reading this story so people can find and use alternatives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wuwqPN4kxg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180122</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft. To name a few, ()patch Tuesday, ()cannot delete opened file, ()No distinction between administrator and normal user, ()backward compatibility back to DOS, ()GUI in server and for administration tasks,()no distinction between executables and normal files,()whole hard drive is writable, ()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.</i>
</p><p>These are all disingenuous at best, flat-out false at worst.  Surely you can do better ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft .
To name a few , ( ) patch Tuesday , ( ) can not delete opened file , ( ) No distinction between administrator and normal user , ( ) backward compatibility back to DOS , ( ) GUI in server and for administration tasks , ( ) no distinction between executables and normal files , ( ) whole hard drive is writable , ( ) complex database for configuration and the list goes on .
These are all disingenuous at best , flat-out false at worst .
Surely you can do better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft.
To name a few, ()patch Tuesday, ()cannot delete opened file, ()No distinction between administrator and normal user, ()backward compatibility back to DOS, ()GUI in server and for administration tasks,()no distinction between executables and normal files,()whole hard drive is writable, ()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.
These are all disingenuous at best, flat-out false at worst.
Surely you can do better ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140</id>
	<title>Re:Or more likely</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular (and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop).</i> </p><p>Apache is the most popular web server and it is open source. Shouldn't it have more security problems as IIS? Where is the Code Red for Apache, that infected over 250.000 servers?</p><p>Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft. To name a few, ()patch Tuesday, ()cannot delete opened file, ()No distinction between administrator and normal user, ()backward compatibility back to DOS, ()GUI in server and for administration tasks,()no distinction between executables and normal files,()whole hard drive is writable, ()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular ( and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop ) .
Apache is the most popular web server and it is open source .
Should n't it have more security problems as IIS ?
Where is the Code Red for Apache , that infected over 250.000 servers ? Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft .
To name a few , ( ) patch Tuesday , ( ) can not delete opened file , ( ) No distinction between administrator and normal user , ( ) backward compatibility back to DOS , ( ) GUI in server and for administration tasks , ( ) no distinction between executables and normal files , ( ) whole hard drive is writable , ( ) complex database for configuration and the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It pretty much all happens on Windows currently only because its so popular (and the users are generally dumber than those geeks running for example Linux on desktop).
Apache is the most popular web server and it is open source.
Shouldn't it have more security problems as IIS?
Where is the Code Red for Apache, that infected over 250.000 servers?Windows is targeted because of the poor security choices from Microsoft.
To name a few, ()patch Tuesday, ()cannot delete opened file, ()No distinction between administrator and normal user, ()backward compatibility back to DOS, ()GUI in server and for administration tasks,()no distinction between executables and normal files,()whole hard drive is writable, ()complex database for configuration and the list goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31224454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31176340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31202546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_141228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31181706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31224454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169484
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172004
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31176340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31181706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31175510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31202546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174064
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31171140
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172192
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177096
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31180122
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31170740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31177264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31172338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31173284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31174124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31168834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_141228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_141228.31169386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
