Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Bug Graphics Media

Delete Or Update All Adobe Flash Player Instances, Experts Warn (threatpost.com) 172

Posted by EditorDavid from the Flash-in-the-pan dept.
An anonymous reader quotes an article from BankInfoSecurity: Security experts are once again warning enterprises to immediately update -- or delete -- all instances of the Adobe Flash Player they may have installed on any system in the wake of reports that a zero-day flaw in the web browser plug-in is being targeted by an advanced persistent threat group.... The bug exists in Adobe Flash Player 21.0.0.242 and earlier versions -- running on Windows, Mac, Linux, and Chrome OS -- and "successful exploitation could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system." Thursday Adobe released an updated version of Flash patching 36 separate vulnerabilities, including the critical vulnerability which "if exploited would allow malicious native-code to execute, potentially without a user being aware." While applauding Adobe's quick response, researchers at Kaspersky Lab say it's already been exploited in Russia, Nepal, South Korea, China, India, Kuwait and Romania, and BankInfoSecurity writes that "The latest warning over this campaign reinforces just how often APT attackers target Flash, thus making a potential business case for banning it for inside the enterprise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Delete Or Update All Adobe Flash Player Instances, Experts Warn More

Delete Or Update All Adobe Flash Player Instances, Experts Warn

Comments Filter:

  • Well (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Smith ( 4340437 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @07:36PM (#52344925)
    Flash is literally a zombie at this point.

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:03PM (#52345021)

      Flash is literally a zombie at this point.

      Yeah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago. Prior to that, I'd been running ClickToFlash for several years... but then I realized just how infrequently I actually "clicked" to enable anything. Plus Adobe's insistence on installing it for all users, and with admin privileges to boot - really ridiculous, especially given Flash's horrible track record.

      Since Chrome has Flash built in, and since I don't use Chrome as my main browser - if there's ever something Flash-based I actually want to access, I just launch that browser. But I can't remember the last time I actually did that...

      • Flash is literally a zombie at this point.

        Yeah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago. Prior to that, I'd been running ClickToFlash for several years... but then I realized just how infrequently I actually "clicked" to enable anything. Plus Adobe's insistence on installing it for all users, and with admin privileges to boot - really ridiculous, especially given Flash's horrible track record.

        Since Chrome has Flash built in, and since I don't use Chrome as my main browser - if there's ever something Flash-based I actually want to access, I just launch that browser. But I can't remember the last time I actually did that...

        My 2013 MacBook Pro didn't come with Flash installed. I counted that as a Feature.

        2016, and that MBP is still blissfully Flash-Free...

        Don't miss it at all.

      • Yeah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago. Prior to that, I'd been running ClickToFlash for several years... but then I realized just how infrequently I actually "clicked" to enable anything

        I get ClickToFlash daily, but actually click maybe twice a week.

        I'm not a www engineer, but what's pissing me off is the sudden multitude of autoplay videos I'm getting. I assume that's because of HTML5, but that's a WAG. What I do know is if someone came out with a ClickToHTML5 I'd prolly install it, fark autoplay anything.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You can do it in Firefox and Chrome [howtogeek.com].

          • HowToGeek puts 0-delay refresh in a meta http-equiv tag inside a noscript tag: "meta HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="0;url='...'"

            If you open the page with javascript turned off it refreshed the page immediately after loading is finished and continues forever.

            Fuck those guys.

      • eah, I removed the Flash plugin from my computer maybe a year ago.

        As late as that? I think I'd already shit-canned Flash when I was first given a machine with Vista on it. 2010? Something like that?

        Never missed it. Video doesn't play? So fucking what? Page doesn't have sound track? So fucking what? Advert doesn't display dancing penguins? So fucking what?

    • Is Adobe paid for deliberate vulnerabilities? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @09:29PM (#52345299) Homepage
      "Flash is literally a zombie at this point."

      Big problem: Adobe Flash is a "zombie" to technically knowledgeable people who read a lot of technology news. For most people, Flash makes their computers vulnerable.

      Is Adobe selling vulnerabilities to hidden parts of the U.S. government, or to other organizations, and fixing the vulnerabilities only after they are discovered publicly? Or is Adobe management so incompetent that there are 10 or 20 or, in this case, 36 vulnerabilities in every version? In either case, the large number of vulnerabilities seem to be a strong advertisement not to install Adobe products on computers that have a connection to other computers or to the internet.

      I count 11 new versions of Adobe Flash in 10 months.

      The best story I've found about this month's Adobe Flash vulnerabilities is this one: Kill Flash now. Or patch these 36 vulnerabilities. Your choice [theregister.co.uk].

      I see web pages that don't need Adobe Flash Player using it anyway. Is that because most people don't use the Better Privacy [mozilla.org] browser add-on? Flash makes what are called persistent cookies. Better Privacy deletes persistent cookies.

      Every time I start Adobe Acrobat Professional, it asks to connect to the internet in 3 different ways. So, when I want to make a PDF file, I generally use the free Bullzip PDF printer [bullzip.com].

      Because I have no way of knowing what Adobe is doing or hiding, I generally use the free Sumatra PDF Reader [sumatrapdfreader.org].

      To me, it seems that Adobe is engineering such a bad reputation for itself that it will eventually put itself out of business. (It seems that Microsoft is following the Adobe methods. Windows 10 seems to be intentionally vulnerable. Microsoft products also have huge numbers of vulnerabilities.)

      • See, a zombie- it infects lots of ignorant people while the wise and prepared avoid it.

      • Re:Is Adobe paid for deliberate vulnerabilities? (Score:5, Informative)

        by macs4all ( 973270 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:09PM (#52345401)
        That's one of the things I have always liked about OS X: Native PDF support for both Reading and Writing PDFs.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I just use epub instead of PDF. epub is a truly open format that is supported by everything since it's just HTML.

      • I think of Photoshop and Lightroom when I think of Adobe. Those products dominate the market still.

  • So we're fucked either way? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2016 @07:37PM (#52344927)

    Ok, so if we stick with Flash we might be subjected to security problems.

    But if we stick with HTML5-based technologies, then we'll just be more easily tracked by advertisers.

    Sounds like we are fucked in both cases!

    • Re:So we're fucked either way? (Score:5, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @07:58PM (#52344993)

      But if we stick with HTML5-based technologies, then we'll just be more easily tracked by advertisers.

      I am not sure what you based this on - one of Flash's big selling points to advertisers has been just how much info it can provide to them about your browsing habits.

      • It's a lot easier to limit SWF tracking without disabling essential functionality than to limit HTML5 tracking without disabling essential functionality. To limit SWF tracking, disable the Flash Player plug-in on sites outside the SWF whitelist (Newgrounds, Kongregate, Weebl's, Dagobah, Albino, Homestar). To limit HTML5 tracking, you need to install tracking blockers, and if you do that, some sites will refuse you service because they don't know how to present ads that don't track you [better.fyi]. Sites using SWF track

    • Flash isn't much better in the regards of tracking than the html5 based technologies. Maybe flash ships with its own fonts, not relying on the OS fonts so you cant fingerprint basing on the fonts. But otherwise flash is in fact better for ad based tracking because you can't disable parts of it, you either take it all, or nothing of it.

      Whoever told you that HTML5 allows better tracking than flash, is just outright wrong.

      In fact, in the past flash has allowed so-called "supercookies", dunno if they are still

    • Re:So we're fucked either way? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @09:14PM (#52345269)
      With flash you get the WORST of both. you get the tracking AND the security problems.

  • Porn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2016 @07:47PM (#52344959)

    There's a reason all the adult sites are going to HTML5 over Flash for video. You know your platform is outdated and totally not worthwhile when the porn industry abandons you.

  • Ban indiscriminate access to the internet and watch how the problems fade away.

  • let this be a lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:02PM (#52345017)

    The once dominant interactive web "standard" is dead.
    What killed it? Security problems.

    For the web, security needs to the number one priority considered from day one when the architecture, specifications and scope of the project are first looked at.

    • Re:let this be a lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:56PM (#52345501)

      Flash was never a "standard". I've always recommended clients to get rid of Flash sites because it wasn't a standard and not everyone could use it. When Flash was first introduced, a large number of people were still on dial-up and Flash sites were a big no-no because by then we already knew that people would click away if their site didn't load in 5s or less. Flash was then marketed towards people marketing towards broadband (video and interactive sites and DHTML were going to be all the rage once everyone got broadband).

      When everyone started getting broadband, companies like Google sprang up (or rather, became embedded in the culture) and "SEO" became the buzzword, Google wasn't Flash-aware or compatible, Flash was dead as a 'standard' platform for 'broadband' because no 3rd party company (outside Macromedia and later Adobe) wanted to support it.

      It eventually got taken over by Adobe and it was dead then because nobody trusted Adobe to fix it. It had many security issues already and many compatibility issues even within it's own tools. Adobe never fixed it, they just kind of half-integrated it with the rest of their suite but they effectively put it on life support. When Apple released the iPhone, Flash was dead and now it's just being this zombie process you know you have to get rid of at some point, but you don't really want to because maybe you may need it in some obscure corner of the web.

      • Re:let this be a lesson (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday June 19, 2016 @09:37AM (#52346719)

        When Flash was first introduced, a large number of people were still on dial-up and Flash sites were a big no-no because by then we already knew that people would click away if their site didn't load in 5s or less. Flash was then marketed towards people marketing towards broadband (video and interactive sites and DHTML were going to be all the rage once everyone got broadband).

        You've got that backwards. The very reason Flash exists was to reach people trying to access the Internet on dialup. Dialup wasn't fast enough to stream video, but real-life video is different from animation. Flash was originally an artist's tool to allow animation over dialup. Instead of having to send a constant video stream, you could send a few sprites and images of backgrounds, then animate those on the user's local computer [homestarrunner.com].

        It was only later when web developers realized that Flash was flexible enough to essentially run universal interpreted code (same code would work on PC, Mac, and Linux) that they went nuts. Entire websites in flash, thus defeating the whole purpose of HTML (displaying info in the format the end-user decided was best). Flash ads bypassing the user blocking animated GIF ads. And flash streaming video became ubiquitous (which wouldn't have happened if the folks at W3C had actually added the features web developers were asking for like embedded streaming video, instead of waiting 10 years like they did with HTML 5).

        That's why Flash is so full of security holes. Because when Macromedia invented it, they were just thinking of a a good way to animate stuff on the end user's PC. They had no idea it was going to become The way for web developers to do everything they wanted but couldn't because "HTML didn't support it." It's still an excellent animation tool. A large number of animated TV shows [wikipedia.org] and animated movies [wikipedia.org] are partly or completely made with Flash.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Yes, that was what Flash was intended for. But many sites sprung up that were pure flash. They were 50-500kb monstrosities that took forever to load. There were a few animated sites that took advantage but the promises of Flash were not just animations but also video and hell, video conferencing. None of that ever took place.

    • > The once dominant interactive web "standard" is
      > dead. What killed it? Security problems.

      The security problems were caused by mission creep, e.g. stuff like "Actionscript" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] If they had stuck to being a media player, instead of inserting an "object-oriented programming language", they'd be OK. And it wouldn't be so effing bloated. I just removed removed Flash from my machine (Gentoo linux). To re-install would require 7 megabytes just for the Flashplayer. This does no

    • Did you read the part about work??

      Shit enterprise IT is always way behind since the turn of the century and hasn't been an innovator of newer stuff since the .com crash which now views IT as a cost and not an asset.

      We can't update at work. This would require software to be updated that requires a monthly subscription of over $1000 a month! Why? So audio will work now in which flash version 16 works just fine?! Oh you say record in HTML 5?

      OOps. Not happening as our clients still use IE 6 and they pay our bil

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Not really, consumers rarely care that much about security.
      Poor integration with the browser, lack of accessibility features, poor mobile support, poor support by Adobe (not only about security) all contributed.
      Then Apple stopped supporting its and others followed as HTML5 caught up. Even Adobe stopped believing in it years ago.

    • What killed it? Security problems.

      Not even remotely.

      What killed it was an open alternative to a proprietary technology i.e. HTML5. Flash could be perfectly secure and people would still be slowly migrating away from it many thanks to platform incompatibilities (iPhone, and any other touch input device for that matter).

  • Please tell me how to distinguish this "bad Flash" info from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) disinformation from HTML5 advocates? Patching will inevitably be, well, patchy. So the only safe course seems to be elimination.

    Have there really been statistically significant exploitation measured? If so, why haven't websites banned it themselves?

    • Might as well remove it. Why would you want to keep it anyway? Some pressing use case?

    • Is it *really* that hard to google 'adobe flash hack' & go to the first page?

      http://krebsonsecurity.com/201... [krebsonsecurity.com]

      "For the second time in a week, Adobe Systems Inc. says it plans fix a zero-day vulnerability in its Flash Player software that came to light after hackers broke into and posted online hundreds of gigabytes of data from Hacking Team,"

    • With your UID you do realize that we have been banging on Flash since before HTML 5 was a gleam in W3C's blinky tagged eyes.

    • Please tell me how to distinguish this "bad Flash" info from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) disinformation from HTML5 advocates?

      it's simple: read the article

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Lets just say Flash is a frequent flyer on security warnings. The websites haven't replaced it because it isn't a risk to them and they don't know HTML5.

  • Weekly Flash Warning. 7 Days Til Next Alert. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:26PM (#52345087)
    Since you haven't listened to the 483 times we have told you before, we will tell you again. Uninstall Flash Player. That is all.

  • And Shame on Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:32PM (#52345101)

    For undermining security to try and trick users into installing McAffe when upgrading. That should be opt IN not opt OUT.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dmomo ( 256005 )

      Trying to monetize the security upgrade process just reveals that you have an incentive to ship an insecure product.

  • And no Linux version (Score:3)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:38PM (#52345117) Homepage Journal

    Adobe hasn't released a Linux version since version 11. Unless there's a big surprise, there's no option for Linux users but to give up on Flash entirely.

  • [quote] The bug exists in Adobe Flash Player 21.0.0.242 and earlier versions -- running on Windows, Mac, Linux, and Chrome OS...[/quote]

    According to Adobe [adobe.com] the current version of Flash is only 21.0.0.192.
    I'd like to hear where this later version is that is already considered obsolete, and where the patched update is.

  • I guess either Firefox/Linux is not vulnerable or it is 'open season' and always will be. The latest version for me is 11.2.202.626, see:

    http://www.adobe.com/software/... [adobe.com] -- You probably have to activate flash for that page

    I rarely use flash anyway, so time finally give it the ole heave/ho.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, if you're on Linux/FireFox you're screwed until they finish chromification. Linux/Chrome has the fixed flash plugin. There's instructions on how to get the plugin out of the official chrome distribution and into chromium.

  • Misleading much? (Score:4, Informative)

    by campuscodi ( 4234297 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @08:55PM (#52345187)
    It's only a Flash zero-day that abuses Windows DDE via a six-step process (Flash - DLL file - Windows DDE - LNK file - VBS Script - CAB file). This zero-day is specific to nation-backed hackers, not average exploit kit skids. The exploitation process is just to hard to follow through, and Microsoft EMET detects it as well. So... it's not really that dangerous ffs

  • alright... so have we learned yet? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Flash, Javascript [jscripters.com], ActiveX [infoworld.com]... have we learned now?

    Letting random web sites run any form of procedural code on your computer is NOT a good idea. Not just random web sites, but any site THEY in turn want to cross site script. Even when you try to sandbox this stuff, there are still holes. The valid use cases for such scripting are minuscule - it is chiefly used for advertising, tracking, profiling, and interfering with the user experience such as disabling cut and paste. For the very few valid use cases,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

      Flash, Javascript, ActiveX... have we learned now?

      Boot sector viruses... it's a very old lesson that BIOS manufacturers plugged by the F8 key (allows booting from floppy on request rather than automatically).

      For the very few valid use cases, it can be whitelisted.

      Or simply set as (right-)click to start them. This has the advantage of not requiring a whitelist, while stopping all drive-by attacks. Most attacks are from third-party advertisers rather than being uploaded to Newgrounds/Kongregate.

    • For the very few valid use cases, [SWF, JavaScript, or WebAssembly] can be whitelisted.

      Among these "very few valid use cases" are web applications, such as Google Docs and Slashdot,* and sites offering vector-based animations, such as Homestar Runner and Weebl's Stuff. So how should the operator of a website hosting a web application go about demonstrating to users that the application is among these "very few valid use cases"?

      * Try loading more than the 100 top-scored comments without script. If you succeed, reply and let me know what you pushed.

  • Can't get rid of Flash yet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:59PM (#52345511)

    I tried removing Flash from my SeaMonkey install and that lasted all of 5 minutes before I found a forum post with an embedded YouTube clip that I couldn't play (and wanted to play). So I can't ditch Flash yet (at least not until YouTube comes up with a way to embed YouTube clips into forum posts, blog posts etc etc without needing Flash installed)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Embedding HTML5 Youtbe videos works just fine. The problem is that the web site you went to used an older embed method that defaults to Flash.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by melting_clock ( 659274 )

      You could install flashblock and only allow flash content that you actually need. It cuts down on security threats and ads.

  • This is news exactly how?

    Perhaps more amazing or a testimonial to the current state of slashdot is a lack of "dupe" among the visible comments.

    So I scanned the insightful comments. Is it the broken moderation system, lousy moderators, or just a general lack of moderation points? Didn't find much in the way of insight with that tag.

    Closest bit was a reference to the need for security. Sorry, NOT insightful.

    Insightful would have been an analysis of the drive for flash over substance, as driven by advertiser e

  • The training department in HR uses an older verson of Adobe Captivate for their presentations and audio won't work with any newer version. Since Adobe only rents software I can't justify the $750 a month it will cost for all 3 users to update! Thanks adobe

    So I will be fired or written up if we get any ransomware, but I can't use newer software. What a joy!

    At home I use flashblock for Chrome and Adblock plus for Chrome and IE. Too bad I can't use it at work as my users are drooling idiots who will form a lin

  • are there any good open source flash replacements (mainly for firefox on my mac) that can get me through some older sites that use flash. I just need something with minimal features and tight security.

    I was aware of swfdec back in the day and found some others: lightspark, gnash, Mozilla Shumway.

  • One of the really useful features in PDF is the ability via Adobe Reader to embed flash videos in PDFs. It's a very convenient way to deliver videos to a client (or in our case, grant review committee) in a nicely packaged way that is guaranteed to be playable (everyone can get Reader). Moreover, everyone that accepts documents for various applications in my circles, accepts them in PDF.

    If we can't use flash (and I recognize that, eventually, another solution will become necessary), what's the alternative f

  • Pretty much every modern browser out there has flash included, so I can't fathom why anyone would even have older instances of flash installed. I literally go through my programs on a weekly basis, and if I haven't used it that week it gets deleted.

  • They uninstalled it a while ago, after one of those zero-days.
    Then re-installed it, when a patch came around for that zero day
    Then just let it rot. I think it's patched occasionally. Thank god I'm not forced to use that silly Windows-image of theirs.
    They know what they're doing. They just think an APT can't or won't hit them. Or that AV and their silly proxy will catch it. I actually have to chuckle at the thought of that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close