4 ms·
You seem to only want to receive an answer that starts with "You bring up credible evidence, but maybe there's an alternate scenario playing out here, for which
by yan 15y ago
You seem to only want to receive an answer that starts with "You bring up credible evidence, but maybe there's an alternate scenario playing out here, for which I believe the following holds true..." Now I can do that, but since we're all speculating, this is implied. No one is saying you're dead wrong, we're just posting alternate hypothesis and you're taking this very personally.
Let's apply Occam's razor: a) There is no reason why Flash (or another plugin) needs to take up a large amount of space on the page. If I were to write a flash exploit, it'd be a 1x1 object with whatever ActionScript that triggers the vulnerability, no need for a large area. b) VUPEN is a bunch of extremely talented folks and I believe they have little to gain by posting a fabricated exploit video. c) The delay can also be caused by a rather advanced heap-grooming technique, it can be JS garbage collection invoked many times, it can literally be them trying the payload numerous times. Implying it's probably flash is just as speculative as we're being.
Relax man, no one's disagreeing with you to be an asshole, no one's trying to argue with you, we're all just speculating.
- jsprinkles 15y agoNo, I do not want to receive an answer. That would imply that I asked a question in my OP.