Recommended Posts

Adobe adds Flash sandboxing to Firefox

Hackers bypass it in 3, 2?

Adobe has released beta code for sandboxing its heavily hacked Flash code within Firefox, in a similar fashion to the Chrome security protections added to its Reader software and Google?s Chrome browser.

?Sandboxing technology has proven very effective in protecting users by increasing the cost and complexity of authoring effective exploits,? said Peleus Uhley, senior security researcher for Adobe in a blog post.

?For example, since its launch in November 2010, we have not seen a single successful exploit in the wild against Adobe Reader X. We hope to see similar results with the Flash Player sandbox for Firefox once the final version is released later this year.?

Adobe used elements of the sandboxing technology Google had built into Chrome for its Reader code, after a string of attacks against the popular Flash platform. The technology was released on November 2010 ? and promptly broken less than two months later by a Google engineer, although Adobe said this didn't count as it couldn't be done remotely. The code has also been added to Chrome, and Adobe promised other browsers would get similar protections.

The code will work with Firefox 4.0 or later versions running on Windows 7 or Vista. More details will be given in Uhley?s talk at the CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, early next month.

Source: The Register

It's sad that Adobe has to do it since they know Mozilla never will.

What makes you think Mozilla wouldn't implement such a thing? I'd say Adobe need to do it themselves because Flash is a mess when it comes to security at this point.

What makes you think Mozilla wouldn't implement such a thing? I'd say Adobe need to do it themselves because Flash is a mess when it comes to security at this point.

It depends on how you implement the sandboxing, the mode Windows offers would break Flash and Java (Which is why Mozilla haven't implemented it). Google seems to have written their own sandboxing code which is why it works with Flash (because it's designed to simply, it allows it to break out of the sandbox when needed, while an OS provided sandbox would be stricter, etc.)

Sad that people still feel they have to use Flash. Thankfully pretty much every place I care in the slightest about has already switched away.

It's sad that people feel that they don't have to use Flash to avoid the clusterf*** of web standards and growing disparity between browsers and the fact that it gives us things you would have never had on the web. The ignorance among people is astounding. But I guess people will hate when they are being told to hate. No way around it.

It's sad that people feel that they don't have to use Flash to avoid the clusterf*** of web standards and growing disparity between browsers and the fact that it gives us things you would have never had on the web. The ignorance among people is astounding. But I guess people will hate when they are being told to hate. No way around it.

But, installing Flash always was the disparity. IMO, had Flash begun like Adobe Air (that is, a download and run anywhere piece of external software), it wouldn't have taken such a hit when Apple decided not to support it. It was the fact that Jobs said it couldn't run on iOS that made everyone else say, "oh, maybe we don't really need Flash." On the other hand, had it been a stand alone application that didn't require browser buy in, it could have taken a huge lead in early mobile development by porting Air over to iOS and Android (and anything else).

growing disparity between browsers

Huh? I know this is going a bit off topic, but the disparity has almost entirely been between IE and [the others] for about ten years. Since IE is catching up with the others, I really fail to see a 'growing' disparity. Sure there's differences between Webkit and Gecko for example (and there's some concern in CSS circles about that), but they're not so extreme as pretty much [everything] to IE6/7.

Adobe Flash is rock solid now. It outperforms IE9 HTML5 h264 performance on netbooks by my testing.

Huh? I know this is going a bit off topic, but the disparity has almost entirely been between IE and [the others] for about ten years. Since IE is catching up with the others, I really fail to see a 'growing' disparity. Sure there's differences between Webkit and Gecko for example (and there's some concern in CSS circles about that), but they're not so extreme as pretty much [everything] to IE6/7.

Everyone is adapting to Webkit now.

Adobe Flash is rock solid now. It outperforms IE9 HTML5 h264 performance on netbooks by my testing.

Everyone is adapting to Webkit now.

Who is everyone? Google and Apple.. you still have disparity between Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari in how they support CSS3 features (for example Google will support CSS3 regions and some Adobe proposed CSS3 additions while Apple added some Safari specific webkit transforms that allow you to get hardware accelerated effects that only work on Safari). Naturally, Firefox, Opera and IE do not use Webkit and have completely different ways of dealing with CSS and even DOM in some cases.

We have never been further away from unified browser because every browser maker has their own interests and politics and want to rule the web.

But I do agree with you, Flash is by far, today, years ahead of anything HTML5 offers and has quickly trumped the HTML5 video/h.264 performance it briefly lost to HTML5 but with Flash you have huge interactivity support via coding on top of the video layer, plus good DRM for commercial videos and so many other things. This is only for videos mind you.

I just hope that Adobe disables, sooner than later, right click on the Flash player as I guarantee all the hate mongering people will not even know what's flash and what's HTML if that was the case today.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!