5 ms·

Why would FedEx require users to enable Flash as "run always?" Is there really not a better solution available to simply whitelist their site or be given a pop-

Why would FedEx require users to enable Flash as "run always?" Is there really not a better solution available to simply whitelist their site or be given a pop-up in Chrome asking to enable it temporarily?

eridius 10y ago
If FedEx relies on opening a .swf file directly in a new window, you need to select Run Always, because Google apparently doesn't give a shit about doing things right and made it so no amount of whitelisting will allow it to run .swf files directly (instead it just downloads the .swf).
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Doing things "right"... I would rather know where flash beings and ends and have to jump through hoops. Actually I would prefer it never run at all ever. Flash not run is "right". There have been too many security flaws where Flash would allow remote execution of arbitrary code, and that eventually means viruses. If my family gets a virus, then I am on the hook for it.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Yes, this is precisely why Chrome's current behavior is awful. It's forcing me to set Flash to "Run Always", which is a security and privacy problem, simply because one site I use opens .swf files in new windows instead of embedding them in HTML pages.
- dkersten 10y ago
  Where flash is concerned, for me, doing things right is exactly what Google are doing here.
  - eridius 10y ago
    No, they really aren't. If a site opens a .swf file in a new window, Chrome should behave exactly as though it opened an HTML page that embedded the SWF, i.e. letting me approve it, and playing it if I've whitelisted the domain. Instead it will always download the SWF if you have your Flash content settings set to anything else besides Run Always. It's really stupid and it means I have to keep Flash enabled globally (which I really don't want to do) simply because Google doesn't care enough to handle edge cases properly.
nightski 10y ago
Who knows, but my best guess is that it was the easiest set of instructions to give. The more complicated you get, the less likely anyone is to actually do it. It actually irks me a bit about Chrome/Firefox. I understand they want to kill these addons. But I still unfortunately am forced to use sites that require Java and/or Flash. I'm just grateful MS still has the older version of IE available in Win10 so I can get these important things done.
- coding123 10y ago
  I get Flash, but Java, you use sites that have Java Applets on them? I can't even imagine which ones are actually left.
  - RazZziel 10y ago
    Lots of government websites in Spain, for instance.
  - FreeFull 10y ago
    There is the older stuff on http://dan-ball.jp/en/ http://dan-ball.jp/en/ but most of everything there has been ported over to javascript
  - __jal 10y ago
    Don't know about the original poster, but there are still a ton of crappy managed switches/APs/other embedded devices that use Java applets for configuration in operation. In a past life, I had to keep two different browser installs, each with a different JVM version in obsolete browsers, aside from my "real" browser to deal with crap like that.
  - suneilp 10y ago
    Those are probably ancient corporate tools, either made in-house or by some 3rd party that won't update to newer technology without enough of a monetary incentive.
  - severino 10y ago
    I guess digital signature, mostly. Signing documents without your private key leaving the computer. It's not something you can do easily cross-browser.

eridius 10y ago

If FedEx relies on opening a .swf file directly in a new window, you need to select Run Always, because Google apparently doesn't give a shit about doing things right and made it so no amount of whitelisting will allow it to run .swf files directly (instead it just downloads the .swf).

sqeaky 10y ago
Doing things "right"... I would rather know where flash beings and ends and have to jump through hoops. Actually I would prefer it never run at all ever. Flash not run is "right". There have been too many security flaws where Flash would allow remote execution of arbitrary code, and that eventually means viruses. If my family gets a virus, then I am on the hook for it.
- eridius 10y ago
  Yes, this is precisely why Chrome's current behavior is awful. It's forcing me to set Flash to "Run Always", which is a security and privacy problem, simply because one site I use opens .swf files in new windows instead of embedding them in HTML pages.
dkersten 10y ago
Where flash is concerned, for me, doing things right is exactly what Google are doing here.
- eridius 10y ago
  No, they really aren't. If a site opens a .swf file in a new window, Chrome should behave exactly as though it opened an HTML page that embedded the SWF, i.e. letting me approve it, and playing it if I've whitelisted the domain. Instead it will always download the SWF if you have your Flash content settings set to anything else besides Run Always. It's really stupid and it means I have to keep Flash enabled globally (which I really don't want to do) simply because Google doesn't care enough to handle edge cases properly.

nightski 10y ago

Who knows, but my best guess is that it was the easiest set of instructions to give. The more complicated you get, the less likely anyone is to actually do it. It actually irks me a bit about Chrome/Firefox. I understand they want to kill these addons. But I still unfortunately am forced to use sites that require Java and/or Flash. I'm just grateful MS still has the older version of IE available in Win10 so I can get these important things done.

coding123 10y ago
I get Flash, but Java, you use sites that have Java Applets on them? I can't even imagine which ones are actually left.
- RazZziel 10y ago
  Lots of government websites in Spain, for instance.
- FreeFull 10y ago
  There is the older stuff on http://dan-ball.jp/en/ http://dan-ball.jp/en/ but most of everything there has been ported over to javascript
- __jal 10y ago
  Don't know about the original poster, but there are still a ton of crappy managed switches/APs/other embedded devices that use Java applets for configuration in operation. In a past life, I had to keep two different browser installs, each with a different JVM version in obsolete browsers, aside from my "real" browser to deal with crap like that.
- suneilp 10y ago
  Those are probably ancient corporate tools, either made in-house or by some 3rd party that won't update to newer technology without enough of a monetary incentive.
- severino 10y ago
  I guess digital signature, mostly. Signing documents without your private key leaving the computer. It's not something you can do easily cross-browser.