[SOLVED] Safe to allow pdf?

Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post
User avatar
Lucas Malor
Senior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:01 pm
Contact:

[SOLVED] Safe to allow pdf?

Post by Lucas Malor »

I disabled JavaScript, multimedia operations and attachment opening in Acrobat Reader. Can I always allow PDFs without any concern?
Last edited by Lucas Malor on Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12
dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Safe to allow pdf?

Post by dhouwn »

What does this have to do with NoScript?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101124 Firefox/4.0b8pre
Alan Baxter
Ambassador
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:47 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Safe to allow pdf?

Post by Alan Baxter »

Lucas Malor wrote:I disabled JavaScript, multimedia operations and attachment opening in Acrobat Reader. Can I always allow PDFs without any concern?
I assume you're referring to this section of http://noscript.net/features#contentblocking, Lucas.
You can configure some exception to the Forbid Other Plugins option by setting the noscript.allowedMimeRegExp about:config preference to a pattern matching the content types you want to allow. For instance, setting it to "application/pdf" will let PDF document load automatically on every site. That said, are you sure you need to? Adobe Acrobat Reader plugin got its share of vulnerabilites so far, and after all, you can still allow individual PDF documents from untrusted sites just clicking on their placeholders.
That said, I don't know if you can "always allow PDFs without any concern" with the Acrobat Reader configuration you describe. It might be sufficient protection from known pdf vulnerabilities, but not for a zero-day exploit yet to be discovered.

Edit: Do you have a particular site in mind where using placeholders for PDF is a problem?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12
User avatar
Lucas Malor
Senior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Safe to allow pdf?

Post by Lucas Malor »

Alan Baxter wrote:I assume you're referring to this section of http://noscript.net/features#contentblocking, Lucas.
Yes.
Alan Baxter wrote:It might be sufficient protection from known pdf vulnerabilities, but not for a zero-day exploit yet to be discovered.
Well, you make good points. Anyway I think that if the pdf is not embedded, I opened it myself. This can be not true when the domain is whitelisted and embedded contents are not applied to whitelisted domains too.

The problem is NoScript blocks PDFs even if they are not embedded. How can I avoid this, without allowing embedded ones too adding "application/pdf" to noscript.allowedMimeRegExp ?
Alan Baxter wrote:Do you have a particular site in mind where using placeholders for PDF is a problem?
No.
Last edited by Lucas Malor on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9524
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Safe to allow pdf?

Post by Giorgio Maone »

Lucas Malor wrote:The problem is NoScript blocks PDFs even if they are not embedded. How can I avoid this, without allowing embedded PDFs too adding "application/pdf" to noscript.allowedMimeRegExp
You can't, and for a good reason.
There's no difference between an embedded PDF and one opened as a top-level document in the browser, from an attacker standpoint.
Both

Code: Select all

<iframe src="some-malicious.pdf"></iframe>
(embedding) and

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=some-malicious.pdf">
(top-level) are equally effective at launching an automated PDF-based attack on you, and therefore if you're blocking PDFs for security reasons both cases need to be equally covered.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12
Post Reply