logoalt Hacker News

Adobe modifies hosts file to detect whether Creative Cloud is installed

113 pointsby rglullistoday at 5:38 PM53 commentsview on HN

Comments

hatradiowigwamtoday at 7:45 PM

Whether it's run as root/administrator or not - you can disable this behavior by setting the immutable flag on /etc/hosts. No user, including root, can write to a file with the immutable flag set(although root could _remove_ the attribute and then write).

matsemanntoday at 6:54 PM

Oh well, as a teenager, blocking adobe servers in hosts file was how you got to "phone activation" and could generate a code. So I guess we're even, heh.

show 2 replies
louskentoday at 6:02 PM

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

show 5 replies
psyclobetoday at 7:34 PM

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

1bpptoday at 7:27 PM

I owe thousands of dollars to amtlib.dll.

Terr_today at 6:19 PM

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.

show 2 replies
Dwedittoday at 7:11 PM

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

show 2 replies
nashashmitoday at 7:03 PM

So can I fool the website that I have CC installed?

vondurtoday at 6:06 PM

If you don't like Adobe modifying your hosts file then I'd not use them. The checking for the software this way is kinda interesting though.

show 1 reply
ramon156today at 6:28 PM

To be fair, to crack all adobe products requires a few reg keys. It's wild that they have just given up on pirates.

show 1 reply
OptionOfTtoday at 6:46 PM

Can't even reproduce it when setting location to Belgium, or CA or AZ.

I must be missing something.

hypeateitoday at 6:46 PM

Looks like they got a wildcard certificate for *.creativecloud.adobe.com[0] so that the HTTPS connection works and so they don't have to publish DNS records for the "detect-ccd" subdomain to obtain a cert. Pretty neat setup, but also kinda hacky.

0: https://crt.sh/?q=creativecloud.adobe.com

jameskraustoday at 6:14 PM

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.

show 1 reply
j45today at 6:53 PM

Make affinity sound like a smarter and smarter choice.

cromkatoday at 5:55 PM

> for a very stupid reason.

I cannot stomach Thom's articles. So borderline judgmental, holier than thou, 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.

show 4 replies