Live data from Hacker News

Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

theregister.co.uk

101–110 of 193 posts

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#101
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitch. Which happens to amuse me, which I like to waste time. But .. they seem unwilling to move away from Flash (the only thing I found was a ~3 year old support thread that wants to .. support HLS. Yay. Not that's not helpful)

Twitch without Flash has been available for a while now, if you were willing to use VLC + an IRC client. Twitch HTML5 chat went live on June 30th, HLS was prior to that. I'd say they're open to ditching Flash.

Is there a nice way to get the stream to open in VLC?

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#102
post #44
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is news?

Isn't the record of infinite vulnerabilities in Flash widely known by everybody?

IE: 491 code exploit vulnerabilities

Flash: 382 code exploit vulnerabilities.

Looks like Flash has a way to go.

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#103
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of one use case where Flash still makes sense: Live video A lot of people seemed to be surprised this is the case but tell me what single live streaming protocol is supported across all browsers without a plugin? With Flash you can stream HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) to a Flash player in full browsers while just directly loading the same HLS playlist in mobile browsers via native players (iOS / Android). Thi…

Yes except if you want 1080p60 you just won't be able to use Flash because even on fast computers the CPU overhead is killer.

I don't have those issues with 1440p Flash video on OS X running decent hardware.

That said, I truly wish these remaining use cases for Flash were unnecessary, I would not miss it at all.

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#104
post #90
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You think that any other software you use is any better?" I certainly HOPE most software I use can do better than this: http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-53/pr... To be certain, Flash gets a lot of attention because of its install base - but it's been a never-ending FOUNTAIN of RCE bugs for much of the last decade.

Most software that's as complex as Flash is probably similarly full of bugs. Most of those vulnerabilities reek of huge development teams toiling over a codebase whose foundation was written in the late 90s and had features and fixes duct taped ever since.

Do Chrome and Safari have as bad a track record?

Flash has been insecure since originally launched.

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#105
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube's Flash player still works a lot better than the HTML5 one. Their HTML5 one desynchs the audio occasionally, cuts off the audio before the video ends, doesn't support a real right click -> copy video URL (all it can do is give a popup with the URL), and still has other small bugs. The Flash one has none of these problems. It seems to be the case in general for most sites that offer HTML5 alternatives that the…

YouTube's HTML5 video player has always been a shit-show, and I don't understand why. Vimeo has had an excellent HTML5 video player for many years, and there's at least a few third-party HTML5 video players that are pretty good as well.

Speak for yourself. YouTube's HTML5 video player has always been stellar for me.

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#106
For me there are generally 3 steps to the process of watching a youtube video.

1. Get the video id. Retrieve HTML containing youtube /watch?v= urls or other urls that contain the video id. Extract the urls from the HTML or other markup garbage.

2. Retrieve the video. Feed the /watch?v= url to a script that does some "find and replace" on the absurdly long googlevideo urls. Below I have given an example of such a script. Complaints welcome. It takes a /watch?v= url on stdin and retrieves the video in the format specified on the command line.

3. Play the video. ffmpeg libraries, mplayer, etc.

Whatever it is Flash does in the process of watching youtube videos (I am quite sure it is not step 3), I do not need it.

Thus even if by not using Flash or a complex "modern" web browser to watch youtube videos somehow were to reduce my exposure to vulnerabilities that routinely occur in such software, I would not care. Because the reason I do not use Flash is.... because I do not need it.

   # proof of concept: video retrieval
   
   # requirements:
   # sh, sed, tr, openssl, ftp
   
   # Adobe Flash not required
   # HTML5 not required
   # Python not required
   # Awk not required
   # web browser not required
   
   
   curl=ftp 
   file=1.mp4 # default outfile 
   url=www.youtube.com # example
   
   
   # itag #s are on the wikipedia page for youtube
   
   
   
   f061(){
   sed '
   s,%3D,=,g;
   s,%3A,:,g;
   s,%2F,/,g;
   s,%3F,?,g;
   s/
//g; ' }

   f060(){
   sed -e '
   s/&itag=5//;t1
   s/&itag=1[78]//;t1
   s/&itag=22//;t1
   s/&itag=3[4-8]//;t1
   s/&itag=4[3-6]//;t1
   s/&itag=1[346][0-9]//;t1
   ' -e :1
   }
   
   f062(){
   sed '
   s,http,\
   &,g' 
   }
   
   f063(){
   sed '
   /%3A%2F/!d;
   /videoplayback/!d' 
   }
   
   f064(){
   sed '
   s,%26,\
   ,g;
   s,&,\
   ,g;
   ' 
   }
   
   f065(){
   sed 's/&https/\
   \
   https/g;' 
   }
   
   f066(){
   sed 's/\\u0026.*//' 
   }
   
   f067(){
   sed '/itag='"${1-.}"'/!d;' 
   }
   
   f068(){
   sed 's/%25/%/g' 
   }
   
   
   f069(){
   tr '\012' '&' 
   }
   
   f070(){
   sed 's/&$//'; echo 
   }
   
   f071(){
   local a061 a062 a063;
   while read a; do 
   case $a in 
   https://*)a061=${a#https://*/} ;; 
   http://*)a061=${a#http://*/} ;; 
   *)a061=${a#*/} ;; 
   esac; 
   a062=${a#*://}; 
   a063=${a062%%/*}; 
   printf "%b" "${1-GET} /${a061} HTTP/1.0\r\n" 
   printf "Host: ${a063}\r\n";
   printf "User-Agent: GoogleAnalytics 1.5.1\r\n";
   printf "Connection: Close\r\n";
   printf "\r\n";
   done;
   }
   
   f072(){
   openssl s_client -ign_eof -connect $1:${2-443} -verify 9 
   }
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   case $# in
   [12])
   {
   f071 \
   |f072 $url \
   |f062 \
   |f063 \
   |f061 \
   |f060 \
   |f064 \
   |f068 \
   |f069 \
   |f070
   } \
   |f061 \
   |f065 \
   |f066 \
   |f067 $1 \
   |{ 
   read a;
   exec $curl -4o ${2-$file} $a ;
   }
   
    ;;
   *)
   exec echo \
   "usage:   $0 itagno [outfile]
   outfile: $file"
   esac

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#107
post #25

Is there any Flash security bug recently which makes it outside the Chrome sandbox?

Yep, the one that became public 5 days ago [1] [1]: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/07/adobe-to-patch-hacking-t...

Only when used in tandem with a Windows exploit:

"A spokesperson for Google confirmed that attackers could evade the Chrome sandbox by using the Flash exploit in tandem with another Windows vulnerability that appears to be unpatched at the moment."

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#108
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HT purchased these vulnerabilities with an understanding that they would not be made public and patched. Then they failed to safeguard them. Clearly these O-days, and conceivably all computer vulnerabilities, are not close to being as bad as smallpox, but what ethical obligations do actors (companies, governments, hackers, researchers) have to protect vulnerabilities which they plan to not protect the public again? S…

I do not disagree. In fact, I personally have a problem with all non-vendor vulnerability sales, for the same reason. I just think we should be clear that exploit developers, brokers, and users don't actually create vulnerabilities; software companies do. I also think people should give Adobe a little bit of a break --- not much of one, but a little. Adobe got monstrously successful off a codebase that largely predat…

Macromedia/Adobe has had 15 years to respond to the news that Internet security matters. 15 years.

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC site will use non-flash videos if you browse it on an iPad, but they don't seem smart enough to serve these to you if you use a desktop browser with flash disabled. Presumably they could implement a non-flash fallback for users but unfortunately they just haven't bothered. I tried to cheat by modifying my User-Agent to pretend to be an iPad but had no luck...

I was going to agree with you, but I've just double-checked, and you CAN access video content on the BBC sites on a desktop (MacOS X Safari) by setting your User-Agent to iPad. However, it's important that you've removed Flash completely from your system (using Flash Uninstaller), rather than just disable Flash (hoping to use Click-To-Flash). For some reason, they detect Flash by some kind of file-path-detection code…

What horrible browser lets a website inspect the filesystem without permission?

Re: Two more Flash 0-days emerge in Hacking Team leak

#110
post #106

For me there are generally 3 steps to the process of watching a youtube video. 1. Get the video id. Retrieve HTML containing youtube /watch?v= urls or other urls that contain the video id. Extract the urls from the HTML or other markup garbage. 2. Retrieve the video. Feed the /watch?v= url to a script that does some "find and replace" on the absurdly long googlevideo urls. Below I have given an example of such a scri…

If you're on windows SVP has a youtube extension that does this and plays it at 60fps :)

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/real-time-video-frame-rat...

Post reply on HN