Firefox To Block Non-Essential Flash Content In August 2016, Require Click-To-Activate In 2017 (mozilla.org) 156
Mozilla has announced that it plans to discontinue support for Flash in Firefox. Starting next month, Firefox will block Flash content "that is not essential to the user experience." Also, starting sometime in 2017, the browser will require click-to-activate approval from users before a website activates the Flash plugin for any content. In a blogpost, the company writes:Mozilla and the Web as a whole have been taking steps to reduce the need for Flash content in everyday browsing. Over the past few years, Firefox has implemented Web APIs to replace functionality that was formerly provided only by plugins. This includes audio/video playback and streaming capabilities, clipboard integration, fast 2D and 3D graphics, WebSocket networking, and microphone/camera access. As websites have switched from Flash to other web technologies, the plugin crash rate in Firefox has dropped significantly. [...] We continue to work closely with Adobe to deliver the best possible Flash experience for our users.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And this is why my primary browser isn't Firefo (Score:4, Insightful)
Chrome has done the first part of this for over a year...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why my primary browser isn't Firefo (Score:5, Funny)
IE just won't play flash unless you have the latest, as far as I can tell.
Edge will, well, no matter what it does you're still doing it on Edge.
Lynx has successfully blocked Flash since 1992 - everyone else is that far behind.
Re: (Score:2)
The chrome on my car is not so flashy anymore either after a year.
Re: (Score:1)
You do know about:config still exists, right? Because it sounds like you do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that there will always be wget and emacs
Re:And this is why my primary browser isn't Firefo (Score:4)
Pale Moon with Noscript. When they decide to start thinking for me, i'll look for another browser...
Explain how the browser is "thinking for you" by discontinuing support for something. Firefox is free software. Fork it and support Flash yourself if you care so much. Mozilla doesn't want to waste the resources on a plugin that causes problems for millions of people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, I'm currently logged in to a customer's system through a browser based Java RDP client. They do not have other options. They don't have the resources to purchase other options.
There are a whole bunch of other options, many of which are free, including Microsoft's own downloadable RDP client. If you want people to buy your story, you're going to have to expand on that.
What they have works. In order to make it continue working, I need to have a browser that can use the plugin or create a VM with the supported browser and plugin installed and auto-update disabled on the browser.
Oh, so the way they are doing it now is the only way to do it? I think they should hire someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you drank the kool-aid and think Flash is the problem is why you aren't seeing what's wrong with a browser discontinuing support for something that is still a presence on the Web.
Are you denying that Flash has been the vector for numerous security exploits?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see HBI saying anything of the sort. They're saying that browsers discontinuing support and thus making content on the Web inaccessible to their users is a bad thing.
And they're absolutely right.
The trend for modern browsers to drop support for any standard more than five minutes old, and in doing so cut off huge amounts of valuable content developed over multiple decades, is exactly the opposite of what the Web is supposed to be about.
Re: (Score:2)
The trend for modern browsers to drop support for any standard more than five minutes old, and in doing so cut off huge amounts of valuable content developed over multiple decades, is exactly the opposite of what the Web is supposed to be about.
Right on. When the WWW was conceived in Tim Berners-Lee's head, I'm sure the very first thing he salivated over was all of people whose bank accounts were jacked via Flash-transmitted malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash hasn't been a favoured form of malware transmission for years. There are much easier targets these days, with click-to-play protection for plug-ins now being the norm in all major browsers.
Meanwhile, millions and millions of people still benefit from Flash apps every day, and all of those people are going to lose out.
Re:And this is why my primary browser isn't Firefo (Score:4, Insightful)
Flash isn't any sort of standard except in the limited sense that it is used on a lot of web sites. It's a proprietary, closed source plugin and application; the precise opposite of a standard. This so-called "standard" exists solely at the whim of one company, Adobe, and they can do whatever they wish with it without regard to its users or anyone else. For instance, they dropped Linux support a few years ago without any input from the community.
In my opinion, Flash is an abomination that can't die soon enough. The same goes for Microsoft's Silverlight.
Re:And this is why my primary browser isn't Firefo (Score:4, Interesting)
Flash isn't any sort of standard except in the limited sense that it is used on a lot of web sites.
And, until recently, more widely available and consistent across platforms than just about any official web standards other than HTML 4, CSS 2.1 and HTTP. In other words, Flash was a standard in the only way that really matters: it worked the same almost everywhere. Which, by the way, is far more than can be said for many of the new shiny toys that are supposed to replace it.
It's a proprietary, closed source plugin and application; the precise opposite of a standard.
Well, for one thing, that isn't anything like the precise opposite of a standard.
As for proprietary, closed source, and running as a separate process, have you looked at how HTML5 video works on iOS lately? Or the uses of EME, which is now a W3C standard? Or the number of different encodings you need to create to do something as simple as playing a video across most browsers in 2016, compared to the exactly one you needed with any number of Flash video players before?
This so-called "standard" exists solely at the whim of one company, Adobe, and they can do whatever they wish with it without regard to its users or anyone else.
How is that fundamentally different to all the major browsers pushing substandard HTML5 features instead because Google decides Chrome will do so and everyone else apparently feels the need to emulate them? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (except that now you can't even see what the old boss was like any more because all the records are inaccessible).
Re: (Score:2)
AKA de facto standard.
Proprietary and standard are orthogonal.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I usually assume it is all a conspiracy to prevent me from accessing government precipitation analysis and weather radar data.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you drank the kool-aid and think Flash is the problem is why you aren't seeing what's wrong with a browser discontinuing support for something that is still a presence on the Web.
The fact that you think a browser is discontinuing support for something for which they are not discontinuing support
Re: (Score:2)
Flash is, and has been, a major, if not the biggest vector of attack in browsers since its inception. It has since its birth in the pits of hell been an ill-bred monstrosity, a cancer. It should have been euthanised long ago.
Companies that still use it for their ****ing "presence on the web" deserve to die the horrordeath of Doom.
These are not pesky little factoids you should leave out when you give an answer like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon with Noscript. When they decide to start thinking for me, i'll look for another browser...
You are severely overdue to find a new browser then. Remember when Pale Moon wouldn't let you visit sites with weak certificates? They eventually backpedaled on that, but if you weren't lying, then you wouldn't be using Pale Moon any more after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> They even decided to break compatibility
> with regular Firefox addons... all for you!
Correction... Mozilla broke compatibility with regular Firefox addons, i.e. XUL in order to switch to the same model used by Chrome https://blog.mozilla.org/addon... [mozilla.org] If I wanted effing Chrome, I'd use effing Chrome already. Firefox's problem is that it's a Chrome wannabee.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only use a handful of addons, and they're all well known, and you're using the same ones for years, then it might not be a problem for addons to run with the same privileges as other user software.
It is not automatically a given that application plugins, whatever the name, have to be "apps" that are fun little throw-away nonsense things that you would casually install and need to be protected from. There is room in the world for people who only want computer tools, or want tools separate from toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are going to make people's lives more difficult vis a vis Flash because of some religious reason.
...
Right, "religious reason." Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that Flash has probably been the biggest security blackhole of all time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Windows failure to segment "Administrator" from "General Purpose User" for most of the last 25 years is. Flash is way down on the list. And besides which, this is a shitty way to enforce security. Click through access does nothing for security whatsoever except make people feel good. The user gets used to clicking through without thinking and you have the same vulnerability anyway.
I won't disagree with you on the Windows part, but click-to-access does have some purpose. At least then the browser will only use Flash for something the user explicitly requests like a game, rather than it automatically running in the background for God-knows-what.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Windows failure to segment "Administrator" from "General Purpose User" for most of the last 25 years is.
"Windows killed my Pappy!"
MS fixed that shit almost 10 years ago. FFS, enough already.
Click through access does nothing for security whatsoever except make people feel good. The user gets used to clicking through without thinking and you have the same vulnerability anyway.
People are unlikely to "click through" ads, which is 100% the point here. YouTube is already ready for a post-Flash world. It's the advertising industry that needs a kick in the crotch (not that that will every be untrue, but here there's even more reason).
Re: (Score:2)
Click through access does nothing for security whatsoever except make people feel good. The user gets used to clicking through without thinking and you have the same vulnerability anyway.
Well, this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. What about the hidden flash apps the user never even sees? What about flash banner ads that the user is almost certainly not going to click to see what they are?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, you said PKI.
Have hilarious memories here of ten years of continuous failure over PKI.
Thanks.
Too damned late. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have flashblock installed, but I have found that some websites (eg. Pandora) won't work with this configuration, so I have a special profile without flashblock that I use just for Pandora.
Re: (Score:2)
Flashblock works? There was a time it was dead, had to use ad blocking instead.
When it did work, there was a whitelist feature that worked.
Re: (Score:2)
it will be even better\easier for sites with malware to be spread as they know can have: click here to activate flash and then it starts a download\exe\whatever to hijack the browser\computer
Re: (Score:3)
I hate Flash too, but some sites that I rely upon still use it, for instance, when you upload your book to CreateSpace, the file picker is Flash.
Goodbye Firefox! (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is dead. Political correctness in Mozilla killed it. Too many wanking hipsters write software these days instead of riding their bicycles.
Blocking an enormous security hole is "political correctness"?
Did you flip this much of a shit when HTTPS was pioneered?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yay! (Score:3)
I've been pushing for this for quite a while. Especially for us Linux/Firefox users, the EOL of Flash is coming up fast and we need to be ready for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EOL date for technology is controlled by the users, not the manufacturer.
That's true for free software that can be forked when it's no longer maintained. But for proprietary software like Flash, the EOL is when the owner stops supporting it.
Flash is a particularly egregious example since its design is inherently insecure, but at at the very least Adobe still issues patches for the publicly known vulnerabilities. That won't be true forever.
Click2Run should be standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With a decent connection, lag isn't an issue, but malware and obnoxious shit sure are. The big problem with Flash ads is the payloads they deliver, such as ransom-ware. Flash isn't a security hole that you can just leave open because you're unable to change with the times. It will totally screw you eventually.
Re: (Score:1)
I am not sure if I care any more. The advertisements have gotten so obnoxious, so in-your-face that having a blocker is almost a requirement. The ones I hate the most these days are things that auto-play a video 5 minutes after you open the page, so you are frantically looking through all of your tabs to see which (*&*(& site is trying to feed you a (*&(&*& commercial.
And when you say "with a decent connection", you don't always control that. For example, your phone might get a good c
sites by enthusiasts for enthusiasts (Score:3)
The rest of you whippersnappers can get off my lawn and take your damn billboards with you.
Control Javascript (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with "Click2Run should be standard", but that's not enough.
Mozilla writes:
Well Javascript is the single biggest factor which "often introduces stability, performance, and security issues for browsers" . And to use Mozilla's words, this is not a trade-off which users should have to accept either. Why Mozilla does nothing to control and limit the impact of the pr
Re: (Score:2)
Just Black List All Flash & Those Still Clingi (Score:2)
Not using flash... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
vSphere vCenter Web Client requires Flash. You read that right a tool essential to managing today's server environment requires you to install Flash on your management workstation. Even better the newest version has features that can only be accessed through the Web Client.
Much fun explaining to your security guys that you have to have the security-challenged Flash plug-ins on that machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the free government GIS data, and mapped weather data, radar, etc.
Now make always close the tab (Score:1)
An annoying new trend: sites that pop up a window when you click to close a tab. The most innocuous ask if you really want to close the site. (I just said I did, didn't I?) Others lock you in an unclosable (short of a three-finger salute) page with the scam "your computer is infected, you must call xxx-xxx-xxx to resolve the problem" which I'm sure will phish for a CC number to "fix your problem." Anything that pops up after you choose to close and demands a response from you is likely malware. (Who kn
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, my flash is outdated anyway (Score:3)
The last two flash installers have just hung forever on my system, so I'm not even watching anything that requires it right now. Maybe later, if Adobe figures out how to lay some files down on a Windows box. I'm not holding my breath. They become less competent with every passing hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adobe still makes great authoring tools, it's just that Flash is now a depreciated technology, so they put little to no effort into it these days.
If they want people to care about their authoring tools, they're going to have to put in some more.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash 11.2 on linux still works. I would wonder about the Ubuntu on Windows 10 thing : run Firefox's linux version and Flash 11.2, coming through apt-get upgrade?
Re: (Score:2)
For the immediate future, Ubuntu on Windows will be command-line only. I don't know if graphical apps are on the roadmap, but they're not scheduled for immanent release.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer if Qt and Gtk+ programs were diverted via pluggable shared libs to use their Win32 backends and bypass X11 altogether but that's an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice about X11, I don't think it cares that your OS is "command line only" or not.
There are several X11 servers for Windows, which can run graphical apps on your "command line" linux or Unix.
Flash deprecation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily there is an information glut. Just try a different site; use their suckage as part of the selection process. People who can't be bothered to build sites that degrade gracefully usually have other problems in their information transmission process anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking JavaScript is OK if you are browsing geocities sites using your dial-up modem.
However, if you want to use any modern website, you need JavaScript as JavaScript is the *only* way to have anything other than a simple HTML only static website.
Re: (Score:2)
JavaScript is the *only* way to have anything other than a simple HTML only static website.
As somebody who spent years in the web-dev trenches, all I can say to this is... ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!!
Or as a consultant I know would say, "Premium Client. Double the rate."
Definition, please... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
lol this one uses the Doom engine. (you can even press F11 to brighten it up).
Not sure if javascript can do that yet. Well, it could but before Doom (real version) was removed from the web it ran at snail's pace.
http://www.officegamespot.com/... [officegamespot.com]
so, what i'm reading is... (Score:1)
firefox crashes less often.... half as often compared to 16-18 months ago... but "no!" it's not because they're actually writing better code and fixing bugs... it's because youtube is using flash less often. the firefox code itself is actually worse now.
I do that already. (Score:2)
I'll point it out again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a list of demands, I'll just keep my weather data.
And it isn't just the radar, there is lots of precipitation and hydrologic data that you need flash to display in a mapped format, or even just to get hourly data instead of daily.
I don't think you'll convince Congress to provide money to write all new web apps, but you're welcome to write demand letter to your congressperson.
About time. Why wait?? (Score:2)
Seriously I have been using flashblack on Chrome for years now and run adblock plus on IE for a year two as well.
Flash is truly terrible and a risk.
But will they play Badger Badger Badger? (Score:2)
Over the past few years, Firefox has implemented Web APIs to replace functionality that was formerly provided only by plugins.
But will they play Badger Badger Badger [badgerbadgerbadger.com]?
Until that can be emulated on the "replacement functionality", removing Flash is a fundamental impact on the Internet Experience. ;-)
This might win me an argument (Score:2)
He kept quoting 2001 era stats about it having 98% penetration.
He is the perfect example of someone seeing th
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have mandated from the start that videos/audios together with their controlling scripts, must be segregated into their own iframes, tagged accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine a car that doesn't drive to Walmart... because it disagrees with Walmart policies. Browser is a vehicle, it has no value on its own. And if that vehicle will start telling me where I should and shouldn't go, I will just ditch it. "Click to activate" is fine. Making user aware that flash may not be safe is fine. But "discontinue support for Flash in Firefox" is not OK, regardless of what I think about Flash as a technology. While it remains on many sites, it must be supported for browser to be of any use.
Bad analogy. A car is like your keyboard and mouse. Discontinuing Flash in the browser is like the city preventing pipe builders from connecting people's drinking water pipes to the radioactive waste dump.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News uses Flash so it must be good :)