4 ms·
They did at least say they messed up on that. "The mistake we made was marking this bug for "next" release, which is the soon to be released Flash Player 10.1,
by sosuke 17y ago
They did at least say they messed up on that.
"The mistake we made was marking this bug for "next" release, which is the soon to be released Flash Player 10.1, instead of marking it for the next Flash Player 10 security dot release."
The 0.1.0 releases are for actual player upgrades and the 0.0.1 releases are for security fixes. The 10.1 release is actually a pretty big upgrade to the player that will be out some time near the CS5 release that features iPhone native app export, woot!
Besides that, I reviewed the Flash Crash code and the situation that causes this bug and it doesn't seem like a common situation where you load a single unique URL that sends two different Flash version files (7/8) when requested one after another. I know my own QA department would be tickled pink if they could recreate this problem in any of my applications but even then I'd first say "who the hell would do something so crazy, this isn't on the top of my pile of stuff to do, I'm still working on making the player run well on the Mac, awesome bug though we'll get to it later"
- llimllib 17y ago(seems to be a she)
- brandon 17y agoThe bug is capable of completely locking up modern browsers (to say nothing of the situation back in 2008 when the issue was discovered). Esoteric or not, this should have been on the very top of the work pile and dropped into a security patch immediately. Yes, they admitted a mistake, but they wouldn't have done so if their actions had been at all defensible.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- zb 17y ago> who the hell would do something so crazy People trying to crack other people's browsers, that's who.