Re:Oracle knew about critical Java flaws since April
by omh on Thursday August 30, 2012 @12:48PM
(#4455499)
As a corporate sysadmin, I should say that the Chrome method is much better than the Firefox one.
We often have slightly out of date plugins, simply because it takes a while to get new versions tested and rolled out. When Firefox blocks them it breaks functionality and can cause a few awkward problems. Generally that just means that the user will use IE instead, so the protection is lost.
Re:Oracle knew about critical Java flaws since April
by justinschuh on Friday August 31, 2012 @09:58AM
(#4459703)
I wasn't aware the blocking worked that way in Firefox. We considered going that route as well, but in our testing the optional block was nearly as effective as fully disabling.
Re:Oracle knew about critical Java flaws since April
by jackalope on Thursday August 30, 2012 @01:07PM
(#4455610)
It's interesting that you don't mention uninstalling as a final option. Shouldn't the user have the ability to permanently remove a plugin from the browser?
Re:Oracle knew about critical Java flaws since April
by justinschuh on Friday August 31, 2012 @09:56AM
(#4459690)
Sure, but the user handles that through the OS, not the browser.
For out-of-date and perennially vulnerable plugins (like Java) Chrome uses the second mode, which blocks the plugin unless the user accepts it through an infobar. It's not a perfect defense, but we've found it to be extremely effective at preventing exploits because the vast majority of the users don't let the potentially vulnerable plugin run. I'd really like to see this approach catch on more broadly, but other browser makers are understandably cautious about how they should handle plugins.