Reputation
459
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
2 11
Newest
 Announcer
Impact
~17k people reached

Feb
7
suggested rejected edit on The problem I have with wikipedia showing IP addresses to the world?
Oct
23
awarded  Announcer
Sep
30
answered Should I set a password for 'root'@'localhost' in MySQL?
Sep
18
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
Firefox decided to disable Flash? What's the enable method? I would have assumed what you're seeing is that Flash isn't installed by default. Which is generally true for both Linux and Windows installs of Firefox, including Ubuntu of any version. As I say, my concern mainly arose from how easy Flash was install - which I'm no longer so sure about.
Sep
17
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
I'm not sure I was right that "Ubuntu makes it easy to install Flash", which was the initial premise for my concern. But to nitpick - is there really a system that disables Flash by default?! I think you're thinking of "known-vulnerable" versions being blacklisted in Firefox. Once you have an up-to-date version with security fixes, it's enabled by default.
Sep
16
awarded  Student
Jul
24
awarded  Caucus
Jul
18
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
Hoist the direct answer. This is much less annoying to read if I can get to the point (security by obscurity) first. Without the crazy analogy, being called "confused", or arguing about how "malicious" an intial exploit is v.s. a delivered shellcode
Jul
18
suggested approved edit on Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
Jul
18
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
added 178 characters in body
Jul
18
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
UK -> BBC iPlayer. They have some questionable tech decisions :(.
Jul
18
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
added 234 characters in body
Feb
20
awarded  Yearling
Dec
19
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
IOW. Those are nice buzzwords. Someone defined them from first principles. If I can't follow their working out, I can't assess new claims (ex. from marketing of alleged security solutions).
Dec
19
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
Just because I admin systems doesn't mean I'm perfect! A friend does commercial webdev - i.e. he has admin access to websites. His workstation's on Firefox/Ubuntu; there's not any extra security. I don't think it's a high risk. But there's obviously some point where it'd become a problem. So where's the line between the two? If you don't consider those judgements, you won't find the lines.
Dec
19
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
edited title
Dec
19
comment Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
Feel free to provide question edits to make it less over-broad. You're not wrong (though pushing this as a reason to switch, as ubuntu.com does, is I think questionable). But if you admin systems - which I do - you're a higher-value target and the math changes. There's a judgement, and there's the facts. The main question I was looking up here was the facts.
Dec
19
comment Firefox Flash plugin malware?
"Firefox" isn't more secure if users have to magically know to change the defaults to achieve that security. I do like using Firefox+NoScript, but when you unblock flash on Linux it's not confined (unlike Chrome on Linux). So where you unlock it, you become vulnerable to the security bugs in flash. security.stackexchange.com/questions/76486/…
Dec
19
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
edited body
Dec
19
revised Is Firefox on Ubuntu less secured (does it not confine Flash)?
added 255 characters in body