Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day drive-by attacks

Re:Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day d... by glfomfn on Sunday February 23, 2014 @12:42PM (#7286661)

What surprises me the most is not the number of exploits flash had over the past years or even there severity of those but the fact that people (including me) still NEED to keep Flash installed on there machines.

I am pretty paranoid when it comes to security but i still prefer to keep flash installed with all the security burden it brings than having to deal with a good portions of websites which wont render properly. Unfortunately we are far off from the day where flash is not needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day d... by defen on Sunday February 23, 2014 @01:07PM (#7286762)

Firefox and Chrome (not sure about other browsers) have click-to-flash built in. It means you need one extra click to load flash, and about 1% of legit sites won't work (which you can manually whitelist). It's much better than the alternative of your computer only being as secure as the flash sandbox.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day d... by oneeyedpigeon on Sunday February 23, 2014 @03:22PM (#7287406)

> having to deal with a good portions of websites which wont render properly

I am seriously interested in which sites these are. I suspect you're exaggerating (I'd be amazed if it were anything like at least 1%, let alone a "good portion") but am willing to be educated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day d... by jasomill on Sunday February 23, 2014 @03:43PM (#7287499)

As a data point, the only non-video site I currently have whitelisted for Flash in Safari is Google Maps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Adobe releases emergency Flash update amid new zero-day d... by TwoBit on Sunday February 23, 2014 @01:26PM (#7286855)

There are many websites that depend on flash for non-mobile browsers.

[ Parent | on HN ]