Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

Honza Bambas-4
Read this bbc article from this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26045740

-hb-
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

Kevin Brosnan
Tomcat addressed this early this morning.

Kevin
On Feb 5, 2014 2:31 PM, "Honza Bambas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Read this bbc article from this morning:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26045740
>
> -hb-
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

David E. Ross-3
In reply to this post by Honza Bambas-4
On 2/5/2014 2:55 PM, Kevin Brosnan wrote:
> Tomcat addressed this early this morning.

How was it addressed?

At 4:16pm PST, there are no February 2014 entries at all at either
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/> or
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/blocked/>.  The current
blocklist.xml file -- apparently downloaded at 2:04pm PST today -- only
cites Flash through version 11.7.700.169.  The latest warning, however,
was about version 12.0.0.43.

By the way, there are many Flash citations in blocklist.xml.  The file
might be significantly reduced in size if citations were consolidated,
not only for Flash but for all entries.  I saw many citations for Java.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

On occasion, I filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam, flames, and trolling from that source.
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

Dave Townsend
The blocklist and the plugincheck site are quite separate


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM, David E. Ross <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 2/5/2014 2:55 PM, Kevin Brosnan wrote:
> > Tomcat addressed this early this morning.
>
> How was it addressed?
>
> At 4:16pm PST, there are no February 2014 entries at all at either
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/> or
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/blocked/>.  The current
> blocklist.xml file -- apparently downloaded at 2:04pm PST today -- only
> cites Flash through version 11.7.700.169.  The latest warning, however,
> was about version 12.0.0.43.
>
> By the way, there are many Flash citations in blocklist.xml.  The file
> might be significantly reduced in size if citations were consolidated,
> not only for Flash but for all entries.  I saw many citations for Java.
>
> --
>
> David E. Ross
> <http://www.rossde.com/>
>
> On occasion, I filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
> posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
> because of spam, flames, and trolling from that source.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Flash vulnerable but we still say up to date on plugincheck?

Kevin Brosnan
In reply to this post by David E. Ross-3
The plugin check bit as the subject asks about. Blocking needs to trail
adoption of the new version. If Mozilla were to implement a block
immediately users would just use a browser that was not blocking Flash.

Kevin


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM, David E. Ross <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 2/5/2014 2:55 PM, Kevin Brosnan wrote:
> > Tomcat addressed this early this morning.
>
> How was it addressed?
>
> At 4:16pm PST, there are no February 2014 entries at all at either
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/> or
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/blocked/>.  The current
> blocklist.xml file -- apparently downloaded at 2:04pm PST today -- only
> cites Flash through version 11.7.700.169.  The latest warning, however,
> was about version 12.0.0.43.
>
> By the way, there are many Flash citations in blocklist.xml.  The file
> might be significantly reduced in size if citations were consolidated,
> not only for Flash but for all entries.  I saw many citations for Java.
>
> --
>
> David E. Ross
> <http://www.rossde.com/>
>
> On occasion, I filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
> posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
> because of spam, flames, and trolling from that source.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning