7 ms·

I don't see the point. Flash is bundled and enabled by default in Chrome. As long as Google doesn't drop Flash (and they've made it clear they're not going to d

by gcp 15y ago

I don't see the point. Flash is bundled and enabled by default in Chrome. As long as Google doesn't drop Flash (and they've made it clear they're not going to do this on desktop), Flash security is very much a Chrome problem.

sek 15y ago
It is not their program, they can't do much about it and everyone else has also Flash installed. In reality this vulnerability is present on 99% of all devices and not just chrome. Compare Flash having a sandbox, to all the other browsers who don't have one. In the end, Chrome is by far the most secure browser.
- tvon 15y ago
  They can very easily stop including the Flash player with every version of Chrome. It seems like that would solve some obvious security problems. This is hardly an impossible feat.
  - justinschuh 15y ago
    The problem is that an outdated, unsandboxed version of Flash is installed on almost every desktop system. So, if we stopped including Flash, the vast majority of our users would be more vulnerable than they already are. That's why we're shipping a current version with a sandbox that's at least as good as IE low integrity mode, and we're also wrapping up work on a version of Flash that uses the full Chrome sandbox.
    - tvon 15y ago
      > The problem is that an outdated, unsandboxed version of Flash is installed on almost every desktop system. Don't use it. > So, if we stopped including Flash, the vast majority of our users would be more vulnerable than they already are. Prompt to use a specific Flash when the user requests it.
      - harshreality 15y ago
        If Chrome didn't bundle a better version of flash, and didn't use the system version of flash, users would find out that Chrome is "broken" the first time they got to a page with flash. Then they would switch to Firefox, Opera, or even IE if they're on windows. Those browsers do use the system flash plugins. Who wins? Not security. If Chrome didn't bundle a modified version, and prompted the user to select a Flash version, the only one they could offer would be the system one. Unless you're saying that the Chrome team should go to all the effort to build a custom version of flash, but only deliver it to Chrome browsers when the user specifically requests it? That strategy seems DOA from a cost/benefit analysis perspective.
growt 15y ago
one more reason to use flash-block. maybe chrome should play flash only after confirmation by default.
- tjoff 15y ago
  I haven't seen a flash-block implementation in chrome that hinders execution of flash. Often the flash is able to load before it is blocked which kind of defeats the purpose (from a security standpoint). Or have I missed something?
  - daeken 15y ago
    If you enable click-to-play for plugins, it'll prevent it from loading whatsoever before you click it.
    - tjoff 15y ago
      Can't believe I didn't know about that. But I can't find it? (all I can find is that is supposed to be in about:flags) Is it available in stable chrome releases? Edit: Never find what I'm looking for in chrome settings... It's in Options -> Under the hood -> Content settings... (or just chrome://settings/content ) and then you can enable click-to-play under plugins. Thanks!
trotsky 15y ago
It matters because including flash with chrome is an act of realism. If the user runs firefox, safari or another browser they're still going to be susceptible to the same bug - it simply won't be attributed to the browser because the user was the one that installed the plugin. By including the plugin by default they're solving a significantly larger problem than zero days, namely users that fail to update their plugins on a timely basis (or plugins that fail to provide a reasonable upgrade path). If the security world insisted on a technical interpretation (you shipped it so it's your bug) it would be effectively discouraging a process that is net security positive - and that's the reason a distinction is made. Note that even VUPEN - whose business of selling fully weaponized exploits makes them a natural enemy of better security - tacitly admits the difference by refusing to admit the use of a flash bug. If they really considered it a non-issue they'd be freely admitting what they're exploiting. The difference? High security chrome installations often in use by the kind of targets their government customers have will frequently have flash disabled or set to click to play.
- gcp 15y ago
  It's been made clear that not bundling Flash is a sustainable act, if you have the guts to do it. Apple had. Google doesn't. If Google took a firmer stance there, Flash would be dead faster.
  - cheald 15y ago
    I think it's utterly ridiculous to take the stance that Flash is moving towards dead on desktop devices. Flash is effectively dead on mobile, and that primarily for battery reasons. Flash is still very much a big part of the desktop web, and will be for the foreseeable future.
    - cheatercheater 15y ago
      i have flashblock on. the only time i notice it's on is when... oh wait, I don't notice it being on at all anymore. For me, flash does not exist.
mistercow 15y ago
The point of the contest, from Google's perspective, is to discover vulnerabilities so that they can patch them. Allowing teams to find vulnerabilities in code Google doesn't control does not serve that purpose.
- gcp 15y ago
  Google has full control over the Flash that is included in Chrome.
  - mistercow 15y ago
    Do you have a citation for that? I have seen no evidence that Google has any access to Adobe's source code.
    - ootachi 15y ago
      Google is rich beyond the dreams of mortal men (quoting patio11). Money can buy access to source code. Not an excuse.
    - gcp 15y ago
      I don't think this has been publicly admitted. I'm fairly certain for 3 reasons though: 1) Google contributes tons of security fixes to Flash. 2) Google announced they will rework Linux Flash to use PPAPI and make it Chrome only. Adobe seems to have abandoned Linux Flash entirely. Logical conclusion is what Google will do this themselves - and they'll need the source code for that. 3) Android shipped with Flash and Google pushed it as a major feature over iOS. This also points to strong collaboration. Android had Flash very early - much earlier than Adobe could have done it themselves. I admit I was also trolling here to see if one of the Google security guys (who already posted in other threads regarding this) would bite and deny it - in which case I have an indication to the contrary :-)
      - cpeterso 15y ago
        I was an engineer on Adobe's Flash team. Google's Chrome team has full access to Adobe's Flash code. The Chrome team maintains their own Flash builds and releases. That's how they can do things like Pepper, even if Adobe doesn't care about Pepper for other platforms. There have been news stories about Chrome updating their Flash a day or two before Adobe, thus revealing security holes in other browsers' Flash. Google's Android team, for mysterious lawyery reasons, does not access to any Flash code. Adobe had an army of 10-20 engineers and QA working exclusively on Flash for Android. (This is yet another example that Android's device fragmentation is an expensive problem and requires lots of manpower.)
ootachi 15y ago
Exactly. Saying "that wasn't a real exploit!", as the Chrome security team often does, is counterproductive at best and childish at worst. Security exists to protect users, not to boost Google's ego. When there is a hole, it doesn't matter where it is: it's a flaw in Chrome, it's Google's responsibility as the vendor of Chrome, and it needs to be fixed.

by gcp 15y ago

sek 15y ago

It is not their program, they can't do much about it and everyone else has also Flash installed. In reality this vulnerability is present on 99% of all devices and not just chrome. Compare Flash having a sandbox, to all the other browsers who don't have one. In the end, Chrome is by far the most secure browser.

tvon 15y ago
They can very easily stop including the Flash player with every version of Chrome. It seems like that would solve some obvious security problems. This is hardly an impossible feat.
- justinschuh 15y ago
  The problem is that an outdated, unsandboxed version of Flash is installed on almost every desktop system. So, if we stopped including Flash, the vast majority of our users would be more vulnerable than they already are. That's why we're shipping a current version with a sandbox that's at least as good as IE low integrity mode, and we're also wrapping up work on a version of Flash that uses the full Chrome sandbox.
  - tvon 15y ago
    > The problem is that an outdated, unsandboxed version of Flash is installed on almost every desktop system. Don't use it. > So, if we stopped including Flash, the vast majority of our users would be more vulnerable than they already are. Prompt to use a specific Flash when the user requests it.
    - harshreality 15y ago
      If Chrome didn't bundle a better version of flash, and didn't use the system version of flash, users would find out that Chrome is "broken" the first time they got to a page with flash. Then they would switch to Firefox, Opera, or even IE if they're on windows. Those browsers do use the system flash plugins. Who wins? Not security. If Chrome didn't bundle a modified version, and prompted the user to select a Flash version, the only one they could offer would be the system one. Unless you're saying that the Chrome team should go to all the effort to build a custom version of flash, but only deliver it to Chrome browsers when the user specifically requests it? That strategy seems DOA from a cost/benefit analysis perspective.

growt 15y ago

one more reason to use flash-block. maybe chrome should play flash only after confirmation by default.

tjoff 15y ago
I haven't seen a flash-block implementation in chrome that hinders execution of flash. Often the flash is able to load before it is blocked which kind of defeats the purpose (from a security standpoint). Or have I missed something?
- daeken 15y ago
  If you enable click-to-play for plugins, it'll prevent it from loading whatsoever before you click it.
  - tjoff 15y ago
    Can't believe I didn't know about that. But I can't find it? (all I can find is that is supposed to be in about:flags) Is it available in stable chrome releases? Edit: Never find what I'm looking for in chrome settings... It's in Options -> Under the hood -> Content settings... (or just chrome://settings/content ) and then you can enable click-to-play under plugins. Thanks!

trotsky 15y ago

It matters because including flash with chrome is an act of realism. If the user runs firefox, safari or another browser they're still going to be susceptible to the same bug - it simply won't be attributed to the browser because the user was the one that installed the plugin. By including the plugin by default they're solving a significantly larger problem than zero days, namely users that fail to update their plugins on a timely basis (or plugins that fail to provide a reasonable upgrade path). If the security world insisted on a technical interpretation (you shipped it so it's your bug) it would be effectively discouraging a process that is net security positive - and that's the reason a distinction is made. Note that even VUPEN - whose business of selling fully weaponized exploits makes them a natural enemy of better security - tacitly admits the difference by refusing to admit the use of a flash bug. If they really considered it a non-issue they'd be freely admitting what they're exploiting. The difference? High security chrome installations often in use by the kind of targets their government customers have will frequently have flash disabled or set to click to play.

gcp 15y ago
It's been made clear that not bundling Flash is a sustainable act, if you have the guts to do it. Apple had. Google doesn't. If Google took a firmer stance there, Flash would be dead faster.
- cheald 15y ago
  I think it's utterly ridiculous to take the stance that Flash is moving towards dead on desktop devices. Flash is effectively dead on mobile, and that primarily for battery reasons. Flash is still very much a big part of the desktop web, and will be for the foreseeable future.
  - cheatercheater 15y ago
    i have flashblock on. the only time i notice it's on is when... oh wait, I don't notice it being on at all anymore. For me, flash does not exist.

mistercow 15y ago

The point of the contest, from Google's perspective, is to discover vulnerabilities so that they can patch them. Allowing teams to find vulnerabilities in code Google doesn't control does not serve that purpose.

gcp 15y ago
Google has full control over the Flash that is included in Chrome.
- mistercow 15y ago
  Do you have a citation for that? I have seen no evidence that Google has any access to Adobe's source code.
  - ootachi 15y ago
    Google is rich beyond the dreams of mortal men (quoting patio11). Money can buy access to source code. Not an excuse.
  - gcp 15y ago
    I don't think this has been publicly admitted. I'm fairly certain for 3 reasons though: 1) Google contributes tons of security fixes to Flash. 2) Google announced they will rework Linux Flash to use PPAPI and make it Chrome only. Adobe seems to have abandoned Linux Flash entirely. Logical conclusion is what Google will do this themselves - and they'll need the source code for that. 3) Android shipped with Flash and Google pushed it as a major feature over iOS. This also points to strong collaboration. Android had Flash very early - much earlier than Adobe could have done it themselves. I admit I was also trolling here to see if one of the Google security guys (who already posted in other threads regarding this) would bite and deny it - in which case I have an indication to the contrary :-)
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      I was an engineer on Adobe's Flash team. Google's Chrome team has full access to Adobe's Flash code. The Chrome team maintains their own Flash builds and releases. That's how they can do things like Pepper, even if Adobe doesn't care about Pepper for other platforms. There have been news stories about Chrome updating their Flash a day or two before Adobe, thus revealing security holes in other browsers' Flash. Google's Android team, for mysterious lawyery reasons, does not access to any Flash code. Adobe had an army of 10-20 engineers and QA working exclusively on Flash for Android. (This is yet another example that Android's device fragmentation is an expensive problem and requires lots of manpower.)

ootachi 15y ago

Exactly. Saying "that wasn't a real exploit!", as the Chrome security team often does, is counterproductive at best and childish at worst. Security exists to protect users, not to boost Google's ego. When there is a hole, it doesn't matter where it is: it's a flaw in Chrome, it's Google's responsibility as the vendor of Chrome, and it needs to be fixed.