×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Zero-Day Flash Bug Affects Windows, OS X, and Linux Computers

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the you-can-count-on-flash dept.

Security 178

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the Kaspersky Lab have uncovered a zero-day Adobe Flash vulnerability that affects Windows, OS X, and Linux. 'While the exploit Kaspersky observed attacked only computers running Microsoft Windows, the underlying flaw, which is formally categorized as CVE-2014-1776 and resides in a Flash component known as the Pixel Bender, is present in the Adobe application built for OS X and Linux machines as well.' Adobe has reportedly patched the bug for all platforms. Researchers first detected the bug from attacks performed on seven Syrian computers. The attacks seem to have been hosted on the Syrian Ministry of Justice website, which has led to speculation that these are state-sponsored vulnerability exploits. This speculation is further supported by evidence that one of the exploits was 'designed to target computers that have the Cisco Systems MeetingPlace Express Add-In version 5x0 installed. The app is used to view documents and images during Web conferences.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Long story short (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870475)

flash is equally bad on all platforms web guys please stop using it.

Re:Long story short (5, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | about 8 months ago | (#46870531)

flash is equally bad on all platforms web guys please stop using it.

Hey ... look at the upside, feature parity across Windows, OSX and Linux ... even for bugs and exploits.

Re:Long story short (0, Flamebait)

popo (107611) | about 8 months ago | (#46870549)

No Flash is not terrible at all.

Name me another valid gaming platform for casual games on the web. Do sites like Kongregate use HTML5 for their games? Java? Just no.

They use Flash because for all the talk about alternatives to Flash, it's still *** BY FAR *** the best platform their is. And there are massive problems which prevent HTML5 being a valid gaming platform.

Re:Long story short (0, Offtopic)

Lorizean (2861821) | about 8 months ago | (#46870613)

Your argument to undermine that "flash is not terrible at all" is that other things aren't as good? That's not really an argument at all. Also, please elaborate on the massive HTML5 problems.

Re:Long story short (1)

popo (107611) | about 8 months ago | (#46870691)

"Also, please elaborate on the massive HTML5 problems."

The fact that you're asking why HTML5 isn't usable for games just shows that you're really not familiar with either platform.

Please tell me you're not actually trying to make the case that HTML5 is usable for video game development.

Nature abhors a vacuum Lorizean. HTML5 sure isn't being ignored because it hasn't been hyped enough yet. As the other poster said, "show me Kingdom Rush written in HTML5 and I'll begin to think you're not a troll".

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870861)

Hmm.. Last time I participated in Ludum Dare there was a very large percentage of browser games, made in HTML5. Among them, a few tower defense games, similar to your example Kingdom Rush, though obviously less polished in the two days allotted for the event. It is obviously technically doable, so why isn't it done more on the big portals?

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870903)

You're making a disingenuous comparison. Claiming that the 2 day games aren't as polished because they're just 2 day games.

The fact is you CAN'T make an HTML5 game (at least not yet) that competes with Flash. The platform just isn't there yet.

Re: Long story short (1)

Lorizean (2861821) | about 8 months ago | (#46871113)

I did actually want you to elaborate on the flaws, because I'm curious. I have no idea about HTML5, I was genuinely wondering what's holding it back. And I just pointed out a flawed argument - certainly you're not denying that flash could be (a lot) better?

Re: Long story short (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871413)

He is being a troll. And an asshole. Any time you hear someone say "if you have to ask why x is bad, then I don't even have time to explain it", you should cunt-punch them. If it's on the internet, do the electronic equivalent. Mod him down.

Re: Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46872343)

The primary is issue is how slow javascript is and how hard it is to develop in and how hard it is to make compatible w/ all browsers in use.

Cookie Clicker (2)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46871971)

Cookie Clicker [dashnet.org] is perfectly playable with Flash Player turned off.

Re:Cookie Clicker (3, Interesting)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46872289)

What sort of monster links people to Cookie Clicker without so much as a warning!

[I have 2M HC's.]

Re:Cookie Clicker (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 8 months ago | (#46872331)

curse you for reminding me that exists i'm going to be wrangle gramas for weeks now

i've seen quite a few html5 games over the years, lemmings was one of them i can't really think of any else off hand, hell i remember seeing decent games back when it was called dhtml and the celeron 300A was around

anyway got hooked on fricken cookie clicker again before i even finished making this post so again curse you

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870743)

"Your argument to undermine that "flash is not terrible at all" is that other things aren't as good?"

Well.. Yeah, that would appear to be a pretty valid argument. If it's better than everything else, then it's hard to claim it's "terrible".

Re:Long story short (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#46870797)

Maybe only on a relative scale.

Like politicians.

Or actual piles of shit.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870841)

Well in that case every technology under the sun is terrible because it pales before 25th century Zazgoolian Imperial tech.

Isn't this whole conversation about relativity to actual things?

Re:Long story short (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#46870867)

No. Software can actually be good.

Flash isn't, never has been, and probably never will be.

Re:Long story short (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870911)

The problem is Adobe Co. They have zero desire to build anything proper.

Re:Long story short (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#46870975)

There's definitely no argument there.

Re: Long story short (1)

Lorizean (2861821) | about 8 months ago | (#46871357)

It's a fallacy to claim that something is good just because the alternatives are worse -http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as .

Read your own link (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#46872421)

The link you posted says it's fallacious to point out that SOMETHING is worse, that the thing under discussion isn't the WORST choice. That's a mistake because we should be looking for the BEST choice, not merely avoiding the worst one.

GP is arguing that Flash is the BEST choice in some scenarios, that ALL options are worse. That's fundamentally different from arguing that SOME options are worse. GP's argument is perfectly logical. Whether or not all of the alternatives actually ARE worse is another question, of course.

I CAN program in Flash, but I've never CHOSEN Flash when the choice was mine.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870623)

Apart from games, and that's changing fast with better HTML5 rendering and faster javascript engines, Flash should have died at least five years ago.

Re:Long story short (2, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 8 months ago | (#46870703)

Yawn... "another HTML5 is almost there" post. Technology is either here or it's vapor. .. And it's not here.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870751)

Wow, you are really keen on flash. It's like fighting for Windows XP, it's installed everywhere, sure, but it's already in the past. Flash is established, and it will linger for a long time, but it's not where the action is.

Re:Long story short (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870829)

Dude is probably a flash 'developer' and doesn't wanna see his lively hood dry up.

Re:Long story short (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46870809)

No, in between vapor and not vapor ... we have alpha and beta builds as intermediate states.

Of course, it can transition to either vapor or not vapor from those. I've seen a couple of alpha builds turn back into vapor in my time, and I've seen Google have stuff in beta for years.

bull (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871123)

http://bombermine.clay.io/

Re:Long story short (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871199)

Yawn... "another HTML5 is almost there" post.

And next year is the year of the Linux desktop!

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870629)

Once again, proof that "gamers" don't care about security as long as they get their precious gaemzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Re:Long story short (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#46870655)

Casual gaming is moving from the web to smartphone and tablet apps.

Re:Long story short (0)

popo (107611) | about 8 months ago | (#46870709)

Right. And the only reason that the "desktop class" A7 isn't running Flash is because it's a threat to Apple's business model.

Re:Long story short (3, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#46870773)

Right. And the only reason that the "desktop class" A7 isn't running Flash is because it's a threat to Apple's business model.

Actually it was considered a massive security hole. This article seems to validate that opinion. Yeah, I know, there was ample evidence for that opinion back in the day too.

Re:Long story short (4, Insightful)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 8 months ago | (#46871119)

One of the best things Steve Jobs ever did for the security of computing around the world is slowly crush Flash under his heel.

It's bad.
It's always been bad. Apparently, it will always be bad.

Just let it die. It's a CPU and memory hog (another good reason not to use it on mobile; the CPUs these days can handle it, but it's bad for battery life) and it's a massive security hole. Why in the world should it get a pass? Someone at Adobe should've nuked it from orbit years ago.

My Little Flash Pony (0)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872019)

So why are the animated series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, The Amazing World of Gumball, Peep and the Big Wide World, and several others [wikipedia.org] made in Flash?

Re:My Little Flash Pony (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46872095)

The output we see isn't in flash, it's just video.

Flash should be relegated to "production tool only" status.

Video is inefficient (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872359)

The output we see isn't in flash, it's just video.

And in an era of bandwidth caps not keeping up with advances in monitor resolutions, this transmission as video is an order of magnitude inefficient in bitrate. Why is it beneficial in the long run to just accept this gross inefficiency?

Re:Long story short (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870659)

They use Flash because for all the talk about alternatives to Flash, it's still *** BY FAR *** the best platform their is.

No, they use Flash because it's what they've used before, and because it's 'everywhere,' not because it's better.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870781)

That's a very ignorant comment.

Go ahead. Name the browser based gaming platforms that are better than Flash.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871197)

And why must games be browser based anyway? Surely there are cross-platform ways to deliver a game to a user without it running IN THE BROWSER, no?

Re:Long story short (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46871301)

Sure, you could download an exe file. No security risk there.

Re:Long story short (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 8 months ago | (#46871999)

Sure, but when you are talking about Facebook, Yahoo, Cartoon Network, Disney, et cetera the goal is to have people stay on your website playing their stupid games. Take it out of the browser and they aren't on your site. Mobile apps still keep a strong tie with the ad/analytics network that feeds the cash cows. Free games need to maintain their product, the users' data.

Re:Long story short (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872037)

Surely there are cross-platform ways to deliver a game to a user without it running IN THE BROWSER, no?

I'll take you up on this deal. What might these "cross-platform ways" happen to be?

Re:Long story short (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46870717)

So, it's the least terrible solution (which is debatable) so therefore it's good?

Sorry, but Flash has been a giant security hole for about as long as it has existed.

You want to play casual games in Flash, that's your choice.

But I've been happily avoiding Flash for a decade or so, and have yet to find a single website I cared enough about to install Flash. Occasionally I need to use it for work, which means a very specific machine, running IE -- which is only used for these kinds of garbage that HR thinks I'm required to use.

If I hit a page which gives me nothing but "You need Flash to run this site", all it's ever going to see from me is the back button.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870919)

I uninstalled java on all family and friends' machines over a year ago with no ill effects. Now I'm ready to do the same with flash.
If I want games, I'll fire up a game console.

Re:Long story short (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872061)

If I want games, I'll fire up a game console.

So what do you do when you see something like this?

  • HTML5 version: Play Now
  • Console versions: We are seeking a publisher

Re:Long story short (1)

gmagill (105538) | about 8 months ago | (#46872233)

If I want games, I'll fire up a game console.

So what do you do when you see something like this?

  • HTML5 version: Play Now
  • Console versions: We are seeking a publisher

I don't know because I've never seen that.

Parent SHOULD NOT be modded flamebait (3, Informative)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46871125)

As unpopular as it is to say here on HTML-5-worshiping Slashdot, it's true. Flash can still do a lot of things that are either impossible on other platforms, or which suck on other platforms. Try implementing the average Flash game in HTML 5 (can't do it at all) or Java (can do it, but it will bring your system to a crawl) sometime.

Don't shoot the messenger just because you wish the message weren't true.

Re:Parent SHOULD NOT be modded flamebait (2)

paskie (539112) | about 8 months ago | (#46871325)

I just, like many others, wish someone would actually fucking *elaborate* on *concrete* *technical* hurdles of HTML5. We are not denying there are none, but just saying "you are clueless if you need to ask" is not going to help your position. We don't want to argue with you but we want you to actually explain yourselves. Gee, this thread is so frustrating.

Re:Parent SHOULD NOT be modded flamebait (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871597)

I guess it is simply a matter of transferring Flash graphics skills to the HTML5 world. Google Docs have already demonstrated what is possible. Google has directly and indirectly probably spent 500 million dollars into almost insane attempts (all their runtime type inferencing in FF and Chrome and so on) to speed up JS. And that money has had some serious results.

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=v8&lang2=gpp&data=u32

SWF: 20 fps; SVG: 5 fps (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872299)

I just, like many others, wish someone would actually fucking *elaborate* on *concrete* *technical* hurdles of HTML5.

HTML5 has no guaranteed audio or video codec. Some browsers support only free codecs from Xiph and On2, others only patented codecs from Dolby and MPEG-LA. HTML5 implementations in use provide no consistent way for the application to request access to the camera and microphone. Neither IE nor Safari implements the Stream API at all, and Firefox and Chrome implement prefixed (that is, proprietary) versions of it [caniuse.com] . And on my laptop in Firefox 28, this particle system [themaninblue.com] runs at 20 fps in Flash, 9 fps in HTML5 Canvas, and 5 fps in SVG. Unlike HTML5 JavaScript, ActionScript has static typing and class-style inheritance, and some developers prefer those. Finally, copies of old versions of Flash for making vector animations are sold on the secondary market; Edge Animate is available only on a rental basis through Creative Cloud. I'd be interested to see what workarounds you recommend for these.

Re:Long story short (1)

coId fiord (3612065) | about 8 months ago | (#46871563)

Name me another valid gaming platform for casual games on the web.

None. There is no such thing as a valid gaming platform on the web. That's like asking for me to name another valid gaming platform for casual games embedded in Microsoft Word documents.

Re:Long story short (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872079)

So what's a valid abstraction for video game input, graphics, and audio across Windows, GNU/Linux, and OS X?

You are the one playing games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46872047)

for all the talk about alternatives to Flash, it's still *** BY FAR *** the best platform their is.

I know who is playing games: you. By saying a completely stupid sentence but putting it into a context where it's believable. The context being:

Name me another valid gaming platform for casual games on the web.

Very cool setup: "Name me a better way you would rather be tortured to death." Then you conclude with "death of a thousand cuts is the most pleasant experience a human can have."

Fine, but let's be clear: Flash is basically worthless as a platform. It's only when you make up ridiculous situations that nobody wants to have anything to do with, that it starts to become worth talking about. Yet you will NEVER, as a user, want to be in that situation, because it's gauranteed to totally suck and there was never a time when it didn't suck.

What is the best way to fuck our visitors? Flash! You're right: it's true.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46872467)

No Flash is not terrible at all.

...

They use Flash because for all the talk about alternatives to Flash, it's still *** BY FAR *** the best platform their is.

easier and better are not necessarily the same thing.

simple fact of the matter is browsers already have exploits come up now and then which cause problems, by adding another executable to the mix all you're doing is adding another venue of attack for sake of convenience. One could argue that the nature of flash makes it inherently more secure since its proprietary and the same code base is used to run it across all browsers and platforms.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870587)

Flash is "bad" compared to what? Show me Kingdom Rush written in HTML5 and I'll begin to think you're not a troll.

Re:Long story short (1)

Stargoat (658863) | about 8 months ago | (#46870661)

Compared to Windows. All comparisons to product security are inherently compared to the most commonly used piece of software in the world, MS Windows. Microsoft in recent years has created a strong security culture, deploying patches rapidly and in a consistent manner.

Adobe, their collective soul to the devil, has not done this, despite being on many many platforms. A few years ago when the US DoHS went after Java for being having awful security, the one they should have been targeting was Adobe. Both Flash and Reader are awful and I strongly regret being forced to use them.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871391)

maybe they are paid for this. both virginia and beijing have massive interest.

Re: Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870687)

Instead of redesigning the web inspector every release, mozilla should set more effort to implement HTML5. Of course, they are ways better than MSIE, but look at the mozilla schedule for MSE [mozilla.org] .
HTML5 video streaming without plugins? forget [mozilla.org] it. At least now.

Re:Long story short (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46870767)

flash is equally bad on all platforms web guys please stop using it.

Will nothing please you whiners? The Adobe Exploit Runtime offers simultaneous support across Windows, OSX, and Linux for a cutting edge vulnerability, and do we hear even a whisper of credit?

Re:Long story short (1)

mellon (7048) | about 8 months ago | (#46871803)

Get real. The NSA isn't allowed to talk about this stuff. Doesn't mean it's not true.

flash is dead (1)

rewindustry (3401253) | about 8 months ago | (#46870833)

- or should be - long live the open alts.

Re:flash is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870995)

What are the open alternatives to Flash games? That's a serious question, not a troll.
I have never heard of one. And please don't say HTML 5. Because that's a non-starter for game developers.

Re:flash is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871775)

I bet you are an Adobe $hill. If not, explain why HTML5 is not an alternative. I bet you cannot.

Re:flash is dead (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872201)

If HTML5 games are "a non-starter", then why are the vast majority of idle games (Cookie Clicker, Clicking Bad, DripStat, etc.) written in HTML5?

Re:Long story short (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 8 months ago | (#46871455)

Right, because Gecko and WebKit never have security vulnerabilities in them.

linux is bad too (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871665)

I have lots of 0days for that operating system

everyone please stop using linux

Re:Long story short (1)

the_povinator (936048) | about 8 months ago | (#46872157)

What I wonder is-- how did the Syrians get hold of a zero-day vulnerability in Flash? I doubt they found it themselves. Did they buy it, or did the Russians give it to them?

WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870521)

Apples cant never get no fuckin visruses! What are you stoopid!

Doesn't affect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870537)

...Shumway [areweflashyet.com] . Sometimes it has an advantage to run a VM in a VM.

Re:Doesn't affect... (1)

sshumway (3635637) | about 8 months ago | (#46870585)

It's always weird to stumble across one's name in comments.

Re:Doesn't affect... (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 8 months ago | (#46870933)

And hear I thought you weren't affected.

A bug in Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870539)

Might as well claim you found brown in poop.

Re:A bug in Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870581)

Or a big black cock in Soulskill's mom.

I never installed flash ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#46870599)

I never installed flash and I rarely find web pages that require it. I've noticed a slow migration away from it as well. One or twice a year I check some websites that required flash in the past and some no longer do so. YMMV.

It does not seem that difficult to go without flash and it is getting easier every day.

Re:I never installed flash ... (1)

jonnythan (79727) | about 8 months ago | (#46870763)

There are a number of things that require it. For me the big ones are MLB At Bat, WatchESPN, Hulu, and HBO Go.

Re:I never installed flash ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#46870801)

There are a number of things that require it. For me the big ones are MLB At Bat, WatchESPN, Hulu, and HBO Go.

People are migrating to phones and tablets for such things.

Charging extra for mobile (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46872427)

And websites offering video are charging extra for access from phones and tablets. Hulu requires a subscription for mobile access, as does video on The Escapist.

I have it disabled. (4, Interesting)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | about 8 months ago | (#46870735)

I deliberately do not install Flash on my computers _and_ I deliberately choose to not install any of the third-party work-alikes.

If the content owner only publishes content in a SWF, it is not worth my bother to look at it. Okay, I can't view video clips in Facebook, but if it is an embedded youtube video, usually I can view it just fine by going to youtube's website.

Re:I have it disabled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46870835)

Granted the vast majority of flash usage on the web is superfluous advertising and media crap, but there are a number of large commercial applications still on flash.

Re:I have it disabled. (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46871405)

large commercial applications still on flash.

Porn.

Just call the CEO (as a parent from some morals protection group) and ask why they are still promoting that "porn player app". It'll get ported to something else on their IT department's double emergency overtime program.

Re:I have it disabled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871497)

elite porn sites like youporn.com are already HTML5.

Portable code ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#46870827)

Well on the positive side it is refreshing to see someone writing portable code. :-)

Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (4, Insightful)

dsinc (319470) | about 8 months ago | (#46870839)

I'm not a Flash developer, so I'm asking very seriously: is there a compelling reason to keep using Flash in 2014? For the past several years, the only notable things associated with this technology have been major security holes.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (2)

Kardos (1348077) | about 8 months ago | (#46870895)

It is dying. Things don't die instantly in the software world, they just decline.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871167)

If it weren't for youtube it would had been dead already. Google is its main enabler. I'm wondering of their real motivation.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46871331)

I don't have Flash on my latest Linux laptop (Debian distro). And YouTube seems to work fine*. I suspect that they are already falling back to HTML5. The only people that seem to be hanging onto Flash are porn sites who want to do some digging around on your system in the background while you are fapping.

*The occasional annoying "you need a plugin ..." message but then the video just plays.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871387)

To be fair, Flash is also being kept alive by other sites that don't want to give users real playback control because that would mean they could skip ads. Other applications like browser games have already largely switched to HTML5.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871429)

Flash allows the powers to have a look at something like 500 million PC harddrives. Youtube enables that.

Re:Seriously: why doesn't Flash just die? (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 8 months ago | (#46872149)

According to them it is better [youtube.com] for their purposes.

Ahem. (5, Funny)

peatbakke (52079) | about 8 months ago | (#46870847)

Re:Ahem. (2)

tgetzoya (827201) | about 8 months ago | (#46870923)

I want to give you all the points.

Re:Ahem. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46871033)

4,294,967,296 Internets to you sir! That's all the internets!

SFW or NSFW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871041)

I'm scared of that site...

Re:SFW or NSFW? (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 8 months ago | (#46871121)

SFW, as long as you aren't drinking anything you wouldn't want to spit up on your keyboard when you're reading it, otherwise your employer's IT department might not be happy about having to deal with the results of your spit-take.

Uninstall Flash! (4, Interesting)

chihowa (366380) | about 8 months ago | (#46870941)

I just reinstalled my OS a few weeks ago and never reinstalled flash. Despite a profuse amount of websurfing and watching videos here and there, I haven't needed flash yet.

Fewer annoying, moving, sound-producing site navigation controls, better battery life on my laptop when watching videos, and fewer horrible security vulnerabilities to worry about! Dumping Flash is something I should have done long ago!

Re:Uninstall Flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46871171)

Then your online banking doesn't work anymore, but who needs trivial stuff like that!

Re:Uninstall Flash! (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46871255)

Yours might not. My bank doesn't use flash.

Wow, where do you bank. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46872335)

I always ask about the technology needed to drive the online banking and I've found that most banks are usable without any flash/java/silverlight/et cetera (Yes, I'm a geek. You're on Slashdot). If the person opening your account doesn't know (likely), they at least will helpfully point out that you can cancel and close your account within the first week or so.

The only bank account I've ever had that has required flash for online access was with KEB (Korea Exchange Bank). In this case, you're right, it was very much something trivial and unneeded.

If it's patched, is it still a zero-day bug? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 8 months ago | (#46871059)

Sure, it might have been exploited while it was a zero-day bug but by the time it made it to /., it was an EX-zero-day bug.

And this is why (rant) (1)

deego (587575) | about 8 months ago | (#46871193)

And this is why you don't install third party "goodies" on your linux workstations (unless you are looking for just a play machine.).

There's a reason distros separate things into free/nonfree or main/universe. The first thing everyone does is go out and get 'multiverse.' Heck, if that's what you want, you might as well stick with windoze...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?