On mySimon: The Double-Daring Book for Girls
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 2 of 2:
« Previous
Fatuous Assurance
This borders on the ridiculous:

"PDF is no more able to embed malware on an unsuspecting user's system than any other typical e-mail attachment."

Tell me, is he talking about "typical" .JPG attachments, .DOCs with macros, .EXE, .SCR or .PIF? Does he honestly consider all of these to represent equivalent risk? What kind of dumbo audience does he think he's talking to, anyway?

By design, .PDF can include JavaScript, "open" other files and applications, and can be trusted to start up multimedia operations. I notice he gives no advice on turning these off these risks, as I routinely do.

All you can say is that current .PDF spam does not make use of the malware opportunities provided by .PDF; "no threat" indeed.
Posted by: cquirke   Posted on: 08/22/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Not what I was concerned about here but  Demzon | 08/17/07
Fatuous Assurance  cquirke | 08/22/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

IT Solutions for 2010

  • Get cost-effective strategies and roadmaps on the most important issues facing IT leaders in 2010! Learn how to easily cut costs and deliver greater efficiency starting with your database, IT compliance management and data center. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard.
  • Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost effective solutions to real life IT problems. Oracle Topline