Adobe modifies hosts file to detect whether Creative Cloud is installed
Adobe's Creative Cloud is reportedly modifying users' hosts files to detect if the software is installed, a workaround for Chrome blocking local network access. This move has sparked fervent debate among Hacker News users, with some decrying it as "user-hostile" or "malware-like" behavior, while others view it as a pragmatic, if imperfect, solution to a tricky UX challenge. The discussion highlights long-standing frustrations with Adobe's practices and touches on the sacredness of system files.
The Lowdown
A new report from OSNews reveals that Adobe Creative Cloud secretly modifies the hosts file on Windows and macOS systems. This practice is employed as a workaround to detect if Creative Cloud is installed when a user visits the Adobe website, following Chrome's implementation of local network access blocking. The article provocatively asks, "At what point does a commercial software suite become malware?"
- Adobe Creative Cloud adds entries to the hosts file.
- This allows Adobe's website to check for Creative Cloud installation by attempting to load an image (
cc.png) from a specially mappeddetect-ccd.creativecloud.adobe.comaddress. - If the hosts entry is present, the browser connects to Adobe's server, indicating the software is installed; otherwise, the load fails, signaling absence.
- This method was adopted after Chrome began blocking direct local network access (e.g.,
http://localhost:<ports>/cc.png), which was Adobe's previous detection mechanism.
The revelation underscores the lengths to which software companies may go to maintain specific functionalities, even if it involves bypassing browser security measures and controversially altering system files.
The Gossip
Hostile or Harmless Hacks?
Users are divided on Adobe's hosts file modification. Many deem it "user-hostile," "malware-like," and a privacy invasion, questioning why system files are altered. Others defend it as a "nifty" and "pragmatic" UX solution to overcome browser limitations (like Chrome blocking local network access), arguing the hosts file is not as sacred as some suggest and improves the experience for the majority of users.
System Scrutiny and Security Standards
The discussion raises concerns about operating system security, with questions like "How is defender not flagging this?" and warnings of potential "security issues." Commenters debate whether standard OS-level APIs (like URL handlers) or user prompts are superior alternatives, contrasting this with the historical role of the hosts file and modern sandboxing principles.
Journalistic Jabs and Justifications
Several users critique the OSNews article's "pissy opinionated" and "holier than thou" tone, arguing that while Adobe's *execution* might be controversial, the *reason* for detecting installed software is not inherently "stupid." Conversely, some defend opinionated journalism, suggesting it offers unique perspectives that "I agree!" articles lack.
Adobe's Abrasive Approach and Piracy Predicaments
The incident reinforces a common perception of Adobe's "user-hostile behavior" over the years. A related tangent suggests that Adobe has implicitly "given up on pirates," with some theorizing that software piracy acts as an unofficial "user on ramp" for new users who later become paying customers.