Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
A researcher at threat management firm Sourcefire has published a home-made patch for the flaw that Adobe warned about last week.
Adobe had said that it would take until March 11 to build a patch for the flaw in Adobe Reader and Acrobat, which allows remote code execution on targeted systems. Adobe said that hackers were already using the attack.
But Lurene Grenier, a senior research engineer with the Sourcefire Vulnerability Research Team (VRT), took time off this Sunday and has created her own patch, which she says should work on Windows systems.
“People seemed a bit worried about the Adobe Reader bug, so I figured I'd take a bit of time this morning and create a home brew patch for people to protect themselves with until March 11th rolls around,” she wrote on the company blog.
“I made this patch using only windbg and a cr***y hex editor because I'm at home now. It may not prevent all attacks on jbig2 - it WILL prevent all current attacks using the method I described, but there may be others. No warranty expressed or implied, etc etc.”
The patch will be something of an embarrassment to Adobe, which has been criticised by some for its slow response to the threat.
To begin commenting right away, you can log in below or register an account if you don't yet have one. Please read our guidelines on commenting. Offending posts will be removed and your access may be suspended. Abusive or obscene language will not be tolerated. The comments below do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SC Magazine, Haymarket Media or its employees.