Adobe Flash Player Now Sandboxed in Safari on OS X Mavericks

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Software maker Adobe has announced on its blog (via ZDNet) that its Flash Player software is now sandboxed for the version of Safari found in OS X Mavericks, preventing malware targeting Flash from accessing sensitive data and system resources beyond Apple's browser. As described by Apple, sandboxing "provides a last line of defense against the theft, corruption, or deletion of user data" if a malicious attempt is made at exploiting an app.
    Flash is a common target for malware and a number of such attacks have affected Mac users, including a trojan named Flashback that began as a fake Flash Player installer before returning with a multi-pronged infection strategy as it infected over 600,000 Macs worldwide. This past February, Adobe also released a Flash Player update to address a pair of security vulnerabilties as Apple updated its Xprotect anti-malware system to enforce new minimum version requirements, blocking all previous versions of Flash Player.

    OS X Mavericks is available as a free, one-step update for all Mac users running OS X Snow Leopard and above, available on the Mac App Store. [Direct Link]

    Article Link: Adobe Flash Player Now Sandboxed in Safari on OS X Mavericks
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Michaelgtrusa

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere And Nowhere
    #2
    In light of the issues with Chrome in 10.9, i'm tempted to install flash and test.
     
  3. Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    #3
    From Apple's website:
    "More sandboxed apps
    Sandboxing extends to more apps, including the Mac App Store, Messages, Calendar, Contacts, Photo Booth, Dictionary, and Font Book.

    Sandboxed plug-ins
    Adobe Flash Player, Silverlight, QuickTime, and Oracle Java plug-ins are sandboxed in Safari."
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    #4
    Adobe Flash, something everyone wishes would go away but unfortunately is an necessary evil.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    #5
    So does this mean that I have no longer to install a system-wide Flash to have it enabled in Safari? Like in Chrome? That means I can uninstall Chrome and use Safari for everything, if that's correct.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #6
    Not relevant to this particular article but... the push notification for this was truncated mid-word. Was this intentional?
     
  7. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #7
    I'm using Google Chrome in 10.9. Can you tell me what these problems are?
     
  8. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Claremont, CA
    #8
    This may be the central reason why the strategy of a "free, one-step update for all Mac users running OS X Snow Leopard and above", was used. This seems to be a way to get a super-security update to as many Mac users as possible including legacy systems.

    As a very strong supporter of legacy system support, this is an unexpected and welcome effort by Apple to bring legacy hardware into the present. I am sure they have financial expectations as well with in-app purchases, app store, etc, but those are only optional benefits. The baseline benefits are free to all.

    Hmmm.

    Rocketman
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #9
    persistent cookies

    I guess it's too much to hope that the sandbox settings prevent Flash from writing its super-persistent cookies.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Cuban Missles

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Location:
    My heart is in Camagüey, the rest in the USA
    #10
    Definitely a good move in my opinion. A better move would be for developers to transition once and for all to HTML5 and drop the flash trash.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    #11
    If Apple is so concerned about legacy systems, why is my 2006 Mac Pro excluded from Mavericks support???
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    kd5jos

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #12
    Respectfully, the minute people stop believing that, it will go away. I only say that because I haven't had Flash installed for several years now, and this is my daily use system.

    I get there may be some corner cases... Yes I know people need to do there job and corporate (or powers that be) haven't migrated yet. I'm stuck in that situation with Java right now. As soon as my employer migrates away from Java (should be Q1 2014) my hassle free days of using the inter webs will begin.

    I'm just sayin'...
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    AJClayton

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Dorset, England
    #13
    A lot of media outlets are reporting Mavericks availability in those terms. It's like saying "iOS 7 is available to anyone running iOS 5 and above". Total nonsense. OS X Mavericks is available to anyone who has a Mac that is capable of running it. It doesn't matter what version of OS X you've got at the moment.

    My ancient white MacBook I bought in 2006 won't run it, despite the fact it's got Snow Leopard on it and my Mac Pro 1,1 bought in 2007 won't run it either despite the fact I've got Lion on it at the moment. Both machines are incapable of running Mavericks so it's the hardware that dictates what you can run, not what version of OS X you've got at the moment.

    Do you think I over-reacted? Perhaps I should get out more? :D
     
  14. macrumors 604

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #14
    WHAT A LOAD OF BULL!

    When you go and install Flash Player from the Adobe website:

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    No thank you. I'm a Creative Cloud subscriber already.

    Awesome on the sandboxing though! :D
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    stiligFox

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    10.0.1.3
    #15
    A complete noob question but: can I still drag *.swf files from Finder into a Safari window and have it run?
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    eoblaed

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    #16
    I don't see how this would affect that capability. It just means that the .swf you drag in there will be running in a sandbox with limited access to the 'outside' as described.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    stiligFox

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    10.0.1.3
    #17
    Oh I see -- this doesn't limit what flash files can be run, just what those files can do when running. Got it, thank you!
     
  18. macrumors G3

    charlituna

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    I haven't needed it in over year thanks to turning up an installer for the Hulu Desktop beta software. I rather wish they could bring it back and Netflix would follow suit.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #19
    I want to know too, I'm using Chrome without any noticeable problems :confused:
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Michaelgtrusa

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere And Nowhere
    #20
    Some processes are not responding using more memory.
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Claremont, CA
    #21
    Because you adopted trailing edge technology? Just kidding! Obviously they had to draw a line somewhere for hardware capability and OS level. They didn't support my Tiger system, or even do a security and Java update for it as I think they should.

    I suspect we will see an entire thread of folks proving Mavericks runs just fine on "unsupported" systems.

    Rocketman
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    #22
    Actually, I think it does matter what version of OS X you've got. There was no App Store prior to Snow Leopard. I learned this the hard way trying to upgrade someone to Lion and couldn't. Ironically, by that point I couldn't buy a copy of Snow Leopard at the Apple store I went to.

    And BTW, I have an ancient white MacBook from 2006 also. I don't think of it as that 'ancient', but it is getting a little dated. Given the relatively static processing demands web browsing and text editing place on a computer, I can hardly say it will ever be truly outdated. My i7 Ive Bridge Mac Mini is faster, but I wouldn't say it's a game changer. That said, what argument will any of us have in six years from now to say that a 2013 Mac is 'ancient'? 4k display graphics capabilities would seem to be the final hurdle and I'm not sure what more is after that. Smaller?
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    #23
    Because it only has a 32bit boot ROM and thus cannot work a 64bit system. The ROM is also too small for the 64bit version to be installed.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Parasprite

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    #24
    Chrome and occasional Chrome Canary user here.

    Go on...
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Parasprite

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    #25
    For me, when it becomes insufficient for web browsing. However, the increasing complexity of websites has tapered off in recent years in part due to better hardware, but also due to the massive improvements in efficiency that modern web browsers have made. If I can't at least use it as a quick internet kiosk, it's usefulness is limited for me.

    That being said, my 1st gen MacBook Air was insufficient to browse the web in 2008, so maybe it isn't the best indicator of obsolescence.
     

Share This Page