Firefox blocks every version of Flash

Author Comment
User avatar

Posts: 2263

Firefox Temporarily Blocks Adobe Flash Because Of Security Concerns

It's unusual to see the current version of anything being blocked, but that's what's happening. Apple has done it a couple of times with the current version of Java.

It's time for Flash to go away. I only run it if I have to, and I'd love to uninstall it completely.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

If a website uses Flash these days, I usually become suspicious. It's yesterday's technology and for legitimate uses, there are other methods available now. This means, sites that use Flash generally fall into one of two categories: 1. It is old and needs brought up to date (even if the outlay is massive). 2. The source of the Flash is up to no good.

Just like most people no longer even have Java on their machine, Flash is not supported by default on many devices. If there were stats around, I would bet they show more than 50% of Internet users simply don't have Flash. Nobody is going to develop for that sort of marketplace!

While I believe it is good that Mozilla blocked Flash for all users, I feel a method should exist, informing users of the reasons. I can see a great many people frantically trying to update their Flash to no avail. I wonder how many people overrode the block, just so they could see what they wanted to?

Personally, most of the time I come across Flash being used, I just close and go elsewhere. If more people did this, then the end of Flash would come a whole lot sooner. Unfortunately advances have not penetrated to some, and specifically to those who still think the Internet is for desktop and laptop computers. "Webmasters" need to realize their sites are not workable by the majority any more and are also penalized for this in mobile search results. What was required of a webmaster more than 10 years ago is totally different today.

FWIW, I still have both Java and Flash. Neither are up to date. Both are blocked in the browser. If I needed to use either, I would update it and enable it. One good move was being able to solely block Java in the browser as certain applications make use of it.

User avatar

Posts: 2263

A new version of Flash was rushed out earlier today. It patches the vulnerabilities that caused Firefox to block it.

According to articles, the new version apparently requires a manual installation. I've run into these once in a while. When the Flash System Preference pane on my Mac indicates that there's an update available, I'm taken to Adobe's website upon hitting the update button. Generally, updates happen silently before I ever visit the preference pane. Or they'll happen within the preference pane upon hitting the update button.

According to bits and pieces I see around the web, I think Firefox will tell you what's up if you’re running an insecure Flash version. I can’t personally confirm anything, though, because my Flash is now up to date, and Firefox will allow it to run if I want it to.

If you go to the plug-ins section of the Add-ons tab, it looks like Firefox will provide a notification that Flash is insecure along with a link for more information. Clicking for more information may take the user to a page like this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/p946

I’ve decided to completely disable Flash in Firefox to see what effect that has. Previously, when I encountered pages with Flash content, Firefox would ask me if I wanted to run it. I’m really hoping that I don’t miss it.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

A link to that page would be a good idea for any warning message.

I doubt you would miss Flash much by disabling it. Quite often it is used for tracking purposes and supplementary content. In essence, non-essential and the page still works.

There are still some big and old sites out there that based their technology on Flash. These have lost a lot of mobile visitors (read revenue) and still have the mammoth task of converting - which is likely to cost them several arms and legs - and they have even less resources now to deal with the situation. I do feel a bit sorry for them but it is hardly like this should be a surprise to them.

I've still not updated Flash. I'll get around to it one of these days - or is that months! :D

User avatar

Posts: 825

I had issues with Flash this week. I am a linux / FF user and I jumped through hoops to no avail. Sought Andrew's advice and I now can't be bothered any longer with Flash. If I am missing stuff because of Flash then so be it.

I have FF Flash Addon set to "ask to activate" and I doubt I will :)

User avatar

Posts: 2263

Some sites start with a Flash splash page that one would think could simply be removed. Of these sites, some have a handy "skip animation" link. Others don't, and without Flash being present, content is effectively blocked.

From what I can tell, video from some of the US TV network sites are still locked into Flash. And Hulu requires Flash on desktop/laptop computers.

This latest round of vulnerabilities is due to a little known company called The Hacking Team, which sells spyware to governments. The Hacking Team got hacked, and a host of vulnerabilities were publicly exposed. Windows, Java, Adobe Reader, and Adobe Acrobat need to be updated in addition to Flash.

Apple was a day late to the party, but Safari for Mac now blocks all but the current version of Flash.

It appears that Microsoft has yet to update the embedded Flash in its IE and Edge browsers. However, Google Chrome's embedded Flash has been updated.

User avatar

Posts: 825

It seems so inconsistent. Sites that report (I assume akin to what you term a splash?) that they need flash I can choose to ignore, I don't appear to miss anything.

The BBC Sports site (I visit often) doesn't report that, but some of its video clips work others don't. These do work in Chromium.

User avatar

Posts: 2263

I ran into a site recently where the entire front page of the site produced one of those "missing plugin" placeholders, and there was no way to navigate past it. This kind of setup seems common on celebrity sites, i.e. the official sites for Hollywood people, musical performers, etc. I guess the artists (or their business advisers) are probably impressed by the "prettiness" Flash offers and don't think much about the technology or its limitations.

The browsers in the Chrome family (Chrome, Chromium, Opera, and others) have Flash embedded. It's frequently suggested that you can choose a browser without Flash for regular use, then pop into Chrome when you need it.

I don't understand Microsoft's decision to embed Flash into its browsers. It makes sense with Chrome because that decision goes back to 2009 or so when Flash was in heavy use. But Microsoft has only been doing it since the release of IE11. When they decided to embed Flash, it was already in heavy decline.

The Flash that comes with Chrome is sandboxed, which gives it a layer of protection that would hopefully make it less apt to cause damage. I don't know if the Flash in IE and Edge has sandbox protection.

The bottom line for Google and Microsoft is that they need to provide updates every time Flash has a problem. That's more work for them. Google has been good at keeping up with the updates; with the last one, they actually beat Adobe by a couple of hours. Microsoft hasn't been so good, though.

For what it's worth, Apple used to provide both Flash and Java with the Mac OS. They got out of that business several years ago.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

IE's replacement will not support Flash at all!

Flash can be disabled both in Chromium and derivatives, as well as IE.

You can sift through this page for some of the technical aspects. To complete the story, read this one liner from Mozilla.

A Linux user has a couple of options and perhaps this could also be applied to OS X users: Run Firefox under WINE or try FreshPlayer, which is basically a wrapper for pepperflashplugin-nonfree, allowing it to be used in Firefox. AFAIK, this should be considered as beta.

As a side-note, quite often celebrity sites get neglected. You'll find most (or their agents) on Twitter these days (often with a link to their dysfunctional site!).

User avatar

Posts: 2263

A recent article said that Edge had built-in Flash, but it could have been wrong. I don't think so, though, just because of the nature of the complaint. The article complained that not only was Edge not updated, it also was missing critical updates from over a week ago. Of course, Edge is part of Windows 10, and Windows 10 is still in preview. People using it should be treating it with caution until after its official release in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, all browsers allow users to disable Flash, whether it's embedded in the browser or whether the browser uses the "central" installation. All browsers also allow users to opt to have the browser to ask to allow Flash on an as needed basis. That's an improvement over the not too distant past when it was necessary to have an extension to control Flash behavior.

In Safari, I have an extension to load HTML5 video when available rather than Flash. Now that YouTube has dumped Flash entirely, the extension may be obsolete.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

Maybe you're right and I misread something somewhere. This recent article contains M$ comments that Flash will be built-in. (Why, he asks!)

I think some sites are still serving Flash to desktop machines (I would assume this includes laptops). i.e. They are delivering different versions. This is possibly a bandwidth saving?

Java is more or less dead for the browser. Killing off XP and hence IE8 allowed the web to move forward. Agreed that people need time to change but they also need motivation. The more Flash is boycotted, the quicker we can move on. Adobe don't want to continue maintaining it, from something I read somewhere, sometime.

Here's one company that is struggling to keep abreast of tehnology.

User avatar

Posts: 2263

Yeah, it looks like Pogo is in a difficult situation. When you see "upgraded to Flash" in 2015, it doesn't bode well.

I've shut off Flash in the three browsers I use regularly (Firefox, Safari, and Chromium). Because I prefer its update mechanism to Chrome's, I'll use Opera when I need to view Flash content. If that works out, I'll get rid of Flash entirely.

The Open With Firefox extension makes it very easy to jump to another browser. Safari has that capability if you enable its Develop menu. There'd be a Chrome-based extension available if I found that I needed that ability in Chromium or Opera.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

Oh yeah! That makes absolute sense to use that addon. I used to have it and then got rid. I used to have its predecessor too.

I must admit that I have not tried Opera for a couple of years. I had a lot of bother uninstalling it and updating it so I became rather reluctant. I do have an Opera Mobile emulator though. That's really handy! :D

Does the new Opera share the same profile as Chrome/Chromium by default?

(Sorry but I laughed when I noticed the date on "upgraded" to Flash! :lol )

User avatar

Posts: 2263

Profiles aren't shared. At times, I've had Chrome, Chromium, Opera, and a couple of other Chromium based browsers. All have had different profiles.

Updating Opera is pretty easy; it's about like Firefox. Open the browser, let the update happen, and restart.

In comparison, Chrome wants to update whether the browser is open or not. I ditched it when I was depending on my iPad as a hotspot for all of my Internet access. A Chrome update chewed up a bunch metered bandwidth.

I usually like "centralized" updates that don't rely on opening the app. The App Store, for instance, is great. But I can set it to wait until I open it so I'm not surprised by huge updates. I also have MacUpdate's app, which scans the system for non-App Store apps. I've never minded letting Flash update on its own because those updates are tiny.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

There's a way to stop that happening, even on a Mac. I forget the detail but is makes use of something called Keystone?

I thought Flash had got quite big these days. No idea the size of an update because many things I install afresh. I have seldom allowed Flash to even check for updates and would be prompted by landing on a page that uses it. Then I can answer the question "can I really be bothered?" and most of the time is no ... but at least I know Flash needs updated.

Some ISPs offer an unmetered opportunity. e.g. Free bandwidth overnight. Even for people on slow connections being able to command when update checking is performed, let alone actually downloading an update can be quite important. The User is really losing control of their own device these days. (Agreed that for some this is almost necessary but not for all.)

I've taken to updating Firefox from the Help > About page. I know what browsers are current as I am trawling stats and logs every day in life. I almost never install a xx.0.0 version. I may install a xx.0.1 version. I usually install a xx.0.2 version, if it ever happens. Partly this is idleness on my part. Previously I used to download the full version to somewhere network accessible and update all machines from the single installer.

User avatar

Posts: 2263

I'm not sure how big Flash is, but the plugin itself is 45MB on the Mac. There's also a system preference pane whose size would be minimal. I think there are a total of about five files scattered about.

I do know that when I beat the auto update and manually update via the system preference pane, the process is almost instant. It can't be using much bandwidth.

By the way, after last month's critical Flash issues, Microsoft delivered its updates six days after they were made available by Adobe.

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

That's about what I thought. Heck, that's 3 hours on a good dial-up! :lol

My daily allowance was around 330MB. One can do a lot with that! I could easily survive on half. However, 45MB would be 14% of a day's allowance. I think Chrome is more than that and Firefox less. In relative terms, I get much more value per MegaByte with Firefox than with Flash.

What can I say? Just be glad Apple don't produce their own version of Flash because they would not tell you it is insecure, they would patch it in about 6 weeks and try and clean up any compromises that occurred within that time ... all in silence! :D

IMHO, Mozilla handled it right by simply turning the thing off!

User avatar

Posts: 2263

Apple used to bundle Flash with the OS, but they got out of that business several years ago. They'd periodically get in trouble with pundits for not upgrading it fast enough. I think that trying to bundle third party software and keeping it updated is an invitation for trouble.

I like the Facebook exec's idea the best. Adobe should announce a death date and get the all of the browser makers to stop supporting Flash on that date.

User avatar

Posts: 2263

Flash wasn't working in Opera, so I dumped it and reluctantly installed Chrome.

For whatever reason, in Opera, I'd get placeholders saying that Flash was out of date. When I checked within Opera (about:plugins), Flash was the current version. Clicking on the Flash placeholder took me to Adobe's download site, which didn't seem right. At any rate, the current version number on Adobe's site matched the version number within Opera, and it also matched the version on my globally installed Flash. Google didn't help me find anything that explained the situation.

I don't think Chrome is going to start updating unless I open it. I believe that previously, I had an app that handled downloads for all Google apps. For a while, I had some kind of reader app from Google, and I think the downloader came with that.

I now remember that it wasn't the downloader that caused me to dump Chrome, though. It was the annoying repeated messages saying that Chrome always wanted to access my Keychain (the OS X password manager). I'd deny, and the messages kept repeating. Shutting off the ability to save site passwords within Chrome (which I want turned off anyway) seems to have gotten that to stop.

But to annoy me today, I noticed four Google apps (Gmail, YouTube, and two others) in ~/Applications. I have no clue how they got there or when they were put there. I thought that possibly, they came when I first ran Chrome (in /Applications) yesterday. However, I also set up Chrome in my guest account, and that account has nothing in ~/Applications. As I rarely open that folder, I wonder if those things had been laying around in there for a while.

At any rate, now that most of the dust seems to have settled, I think I can dump Flash and use Chrome for sites that need it, at least for the time being. The thing that sucks is that because of the annoying Keychain prompts, I'd have a hard time giving a blanket recommendation to use Chrome on a Mac without providing extra directions to shut off saved passwords.

User avatar

Posts: 825

Strange at the moment, quite inconsistent.

Open BBC Sports page in FF 40.0 (on Linux Mint 17.1)
View any video clip - works ok
Try to view any other video clip and just get a spinning wheel

Close and relaunch FF
View any video clip - works ok
Try to view any other video clip and just get a spinning wheel

Close and relaunch FF
View any video clip - works ok
Try to view any other video clip - works ok
Try to view any other video clip and just get a spinning wheel

Is it FF? or Flash?, or BBC?

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group