Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Firefox Internet Explorer Windows IT

Adobe Patches One Flash Zero Day, Another Still Unfixed 49

Trailrunner7 writes Adobe has released an emergency update for Flash to address a zero-day vulnerability that is being actively exploited. The company also is looking into reports of exploits for a separate Flash bug not fixed in the new release, which is being used in attacks by the Angler exploit kit. The vulnerability that Adobe patched Thursday is under active attack, but Adobe officials said that this flaw is not the one that security researcher Kafeine said Wednesday was being used in the Angler attacks. The patch for Flash comes just a day after Kafeine disclosed that some instances of the Angler exploit kit contained an exploit for a previously unknown vulnerability in the software. Adobe officials said Wednesday that they were investigating the reports. Kafeine initially saw Angler attacking the latest version of Flash in IE on Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8, but said the exploit wasn't being used against Chrome or Firefox. On Thursday he said on Twitter that the group behind Angler had changed the code to exploit Firefox as well as fully patched IE 11 on Windows 8.1.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Patches One Flash Zero Day, Another Still Unfixed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2015 @01:13PM (#48877245)

    Adobe seems to be trying hard to get it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seriously, it's not needed anymore. No one should use it or have it installed.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday January 22, 2015 @01:15PM (#48877277) Journal
    Sometimes I wonder what people think a "zero day" exploit means. If there is a patch, it's not a zero-day exploit. From the (of course, always wrong) wiki:

    Zero-day attacks occur during the vulnerability window that exists in the time between when vulnerability is first exploited and when software developers start to develop and publish a counter to that threat.

    Zero-day vulnerabilities make hackers happy because the users don't know about it, and thus can't prevent exploitation. Once the vulnerability is made public, you can block access to that port, or disable the functionality, or avoid exploitation in other ways. It is no longer a zero-day vulnerability.

    IF the vuln was made public 5 days ago, then it's a five-day vuln. If the vuln was made public 10 days ago, then it's a ten-day vuln. Once it's patched, it's no longer a vulnerability. That is where the name 'zero-day' comes from.

    • Back in my day, "zero day" meant that an exploit was known at the time the exploitable version was released, and we liked it!

  • oh goodie.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Thursday January 22, 2015 @01:18PM (#48877329)

    Another chance to block the installation of McAfee Security Scan Plus. Will someone please rid me of this nuisance crapware?!?

  • You know, I subscribed to US-CERT alerts to get notified about this kind of thing, but thank goodness I also browse Slashdot from time to time.
    The US-CERT alert for this critical patch probably won't arrive for another couple days or so.

  • Can anyone tell us if that's vulnerable (& on what platforms)?

    I don't have flash installed but I do have chrome (with it's integrated flash) for those sites that just cannot keep up with the times. Yes, I use flashcontrol to autoexecute only whitelisted sites, but you never know...

    • You can browse to "chrome://plugins" and explicitly disable the built-in flash.
      • by phayes ( 202222 )

        Thanks but if I use a locked down browser for the few sites left, it's because I cannot avoid flash for some sites. Turning off flash isn't an option.

        • I use firefox for general browsing and paste the URL into Chrome for the remainder of sites that need flash (or choke Firefox's HTML5 video implementation)

          Bottom line, Flash is still an attack vector but at least I know I'm conciously invoking it each time rather than relying on the vagaries of a blocker or click-to-play.

          • by phayes ( 202222 )

            Yeah, but you're no safer than I am. I only surf with chrome to sites that I've white listed.

            It'd be nice to know whether or not chrome's flash is vulnerable or not.

  • by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Thursday January 22, 2015 @01:35PM (#48877583)

    There's some Flash content I still want to view. But I want to look at content, not fight to focus my attention away from screaming, flashing, pulsing, squirming ads on every side. If you want me to run your program, make it worth my while. Especially when the platform on which you want me to run it might let it infect my machine.

    Static ads are still fine. I don't much care if you track me and focus them. I'll even click through them occasionally. But I won't let you run down my battery and my brain with animations. I don't care if your marketing macaques say they get more clicks. I've made my choice. I'll never see them.

    • by Anrego ( 830717 ) *

      I've used the flashblock plugin on firefox for a long damn time, but I'm finding it has stopped working properly on a lot of websites, including just recently youtube. I'm guessing this is due to some javascript shenanigans, but haven't had time to investigate.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's due to a transparent overlay they added recently which prevents you from clicking the play button (https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25936).

        • by steveg ( 55825 )

          Thank you for this. I had disabled Flashblock, and my web experience had gotten annoying. Hoping the Greasemonkey script in that bug report will let me re-enable it.

      • I switched from "FlashBlock" to "Flash Control" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org] Because of the problem you indicated.
    • Adblock Plus... Install it, love it... no more crazy flashing ads.
      • by fisted ( 2295862 )

        Adblock Plus... Install it, love it... no more crazy flashing ads.

        ...Install Ghostery because privacy... Install NoScript because many reasons... Realize Adblock Plus is now useless.... Deinstall it.

        • Adblock Plus... Install it, love it... no more crazy flashing ads.

          ...Install Ghostery because privacy... Install NoScript because many reasons... Realize Adblock Plus is now useless.... Deinstall it.

          http://lifehacker.com/ad-block... [lifehacker.com]

        • ....unplug internet because afraid... Adblock does its job and does it well, I don't see ads. Do I care if they sell some info about my browsing, no. We've left the age where NoScript is relevant, I don't want to have to allow every other website I visit just because I'm paranoid.
          • by fisted ( 2295862 )
            ...re-plug internet because porn.
            What you say about NoScript isn't quite true. Yes, every other site needs to explicitly have their scripts allowed, or whitelisted, but that does not mean having to allow 3rd party scripts.

            For instance, on this page on /., there are scripts from slashdot.org, fsdn.com, googletagservices.com, googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, ooyala.com and rpxnow.com.
            Only the first two are required to make the site usable.
  • Releases starting somewhere in the 11.3's and onwards are still consuming all available memory. Without THAT fix I'll stick with 11.2 and flashblock the items I don't want.

  • What it means "investigating"? An exploit kit exist, they can download it and see how it works and have people working on it round the clock. The fact there is no commitment on when the bug is going to be fixed is absurd.

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...