Discussion

Adobe secretly modifies your hosts file for the stupidest reason

cromka: > for a very stupid reason.I cannot stomach Thom's articles. So borderline judgmental, feels like he only writes whenever there's something to criticize.No, it's not a stupid reason. Reason is OK, the execution is controversial.

gjsman-1000: > Reason is OK, the execution is controversial.And even then, only controversial to nerds with opinions. Nothing else about it is controversial.If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly?

rglullis: > In which case, how else would you propose doing it?- Registering an url handler?- Asking the user?

gjsman-1000: You can't detect whether a URL handler worked correctly in a browser; otherwise Windows will appear with a "Select an app to open YOURPROTOCOLHERE://" which is completely nonsensical to the user.As for option 2; ask them every time, or edit their hosts file. Easiest decision in the world: Edit their hosts file, every time, no question. The 0.01% of nerds who care, and oddly enough don't buy Adobe software, are completely meaningless to the 95% who do.

lousken: How is defender not flagging this? Changing hosts file should raise alarms

Steeeve: It's literally a 2 sentence article. Might as well have just tweeted "Adobe makes me mad"

imiric: What a ridiculous conclusion.Why does Adobe need to exfiltrate some information from my machine anyway? If I'm a customer, then they should know this when I sign into my account. They absolutely don't need this information if I'm visiting their website without logging in.Modifying a global system file is something their software shouldn't be doing in the first place, but relying on this abuse to track me on their website is on another level of insidious behavior.

gjsman-1000: If you're worried about device fingerprinting, Adobe has far more reliable ways to do it already. Canvas fingerprinting, IP tracking, cookies. A hosts entry tells them almost nothing they couldn't get elsewhere, and attributing insidious intent to what is most plausibly a UX feature is conspiratorial.

jameskraus: Honestly a pretty nifty way to detect if it's installed. I'm sure this can power a lot of nice features, like linking directly into adobe products if they're installed.

jacobgkau: > If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly?This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not.If you want the browser to be able to give the OS a file handler and have the OS present an option to install the app if it's not installed, that should be handled at the platform level, not on the website using a hack like this.Why can a file not simply be downloaded with a page displayed showing a link to install the app and also instructions to open the file, trusting the user will know if they already have it installed? At best, you're talking about a very small UX optimization. Emphasis on the "kinda" in "kinda important."

naniwaduni: > This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not.How many apps are you installing that it becomes "unsustainable"? Host file entries are extremely cheap, and it's not like the app needs more than one. Of all the arguments against this, sustainability is a comically weak one. If anything, it's using less contested resources than the "hitting random ports on localhost" approach...

nashashmi: [delayed]

Dwedit: Browsers could still do something about mixed Internet and LAN/Localhost requests by IP address regardless of the domain name.

SahAssar: This does not request a local/LAN file, it's a remote server but without any DNS entry unless the hosts file entry is present.

Terr_: Recycling a comment from prior discussion (4 days, 68 points, 13 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47617463_______Oh helllll no. Let's imagine an analogy for Adobe leadership:1. You hired a night janitor to clean and vacuum your executive offices.2. That janitor secretly stops at every desk-phone to alter the settings of voicemail accounts.3. After the change, any external caller can dial a certain sequence to get a message of "Yes, this office was serviced by Adobe Janitorial!"What's your reaction when you discover it? Do you chuckle and say something like "boys will be boys"? No! You have a panic-call, Facilities revokes access, IT starts checking for other unauthorized surprises, HR looks into terminating contracts, and Legal advises whether you need to pursue data-breach notifications or lawsuits or criminal charges.* Is it acceptable because they had some permission to touch objects in the rooms? No.* Is it acceptable because the final effect is innocuous? No.* Is it acceptable because the employment contract had some vague sentence about "enhancing office communication experiences"? No.* Is it acceptable if they were just dumb instead of malicious? No.No person that would blithely cross those lines can be trusted near your stuff, full-stop.

jacobgkau: To be fair, your analogy has one flaw:> 3. After the change, any external caller can dial a certain sequence to get a message of "Yes, this office was serviced by Adobe Janitorial!"Theoretically, it's not "any external caller." Only the janitor's department calling in can dial that sequence and get "Yes, you serviced this office!" If anyone else tries to dial the extension, the desk-phone pretends it doesn't know what it means. (Because it seems Adobe's server serving the analytics image checks the request origin and only serves the image if the origin is Adobe's own website.)The origin "security" doesn't excuse the complexity and the potential for both exploits and human-error breakage in the future.

gray_-_wolf: > Only the janitor's department calling in can dial that sequenceIs this the case though? Cannot any website use the same trick Adobe does to check whether you have Creative Cloud installed? Like, the entries in /etc/hosts are not magically scoped to work just on Adobe's web, no?

psyclobe: The most difficult of tasks is trying to un-unstall this pos app on windows.

throw_await: what happens if you happen to use a DNS server that resolves this domain to the correct IP?

djfobbz: "Correct IP" wins ;)