On 04/11/09 22:33, Rajko M. wrote: So, you wishet to joust, Sire?! Have your Groom contact my Groom to arrange the details! :-) :-)
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 23:07:18 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 04/11/09 20:57, Rajko M. wrote:
...
However, why don't those vendors simply disallow such "hideous....not warranted files.." in the first instance?
Because the end users of Flash are not the only users that Adobe has to please. Taking how much we pay for Flash Player, there will be none if the other part of Adobe users will not pay, and they will not if some part that they find usable is disabled by default.
Not really interested in how much we or may not pay for Flash. In the context of the current exchange of messages, the question still has to be answered as to why applications are written to have "backdoors", and similar, and not have these made transparent to the end user. The OP did ask, and he made a point of it in a later post (but so far has not received a response), that he wanted to know the alternatives to Flash.
Why code their applications to allow this and then leave the users to work out how to protect themselves from these "backdoors" [my term, by way of a quick description]?
Internet provides no privacy. Fire on particular vendor for allowing some kind of cookies, while tens of other services, including your ISP, know a lot more about you and your habits, is IMNSHO, plain unjust.
While I accept this I also state that it is only a side issue to the above discussion. Your ISP, the American NSA (thru Echelon), the Amercian Record industry and the American Film Industry monitor bit-torrent traffic (see the court action currently under way against my ISP, iinet, here in Australia), the security organisations of almost every country know what you are transmitting over the telephone and Internet; the "spy organisation" in my own country can monitor from a van, parked more than 200 metres away from my home, every character written to my monitor screen. You can encrypt your messages, or your HD, - but you are required to provide the encryption algorithm to the "authorities" on request if they suspect that you are up to some "hanky-panky"! But this is not the point, is it?
as root REMOVE 'write' and 'execute' privileges for ~/.macromedia
While "as root" sounds like a serious business, files are still in user possession (tilde in ~/.macromedia, tells me that it is in user directory) and Flash can change permissions, as it is run by the user.
Ce?
While the user has possession of the .macromedia directory Flash cannot write to this directory. I've tried this out last night on several sites.
Perhaps it is because I am using Firefox and have the above mentioned extensions installed?
Probably no, if you see flash running. Although, some programs will not attempt to change them. I can imagine that program designed for windows will lack part that will check and fix (repair) permissions.
Or is it perhaps that the security in Linux does not allow any permissions to be altered by a user but only by root?
Hmm, no. Read, write, execute I can change on files that *belong* to me, but I can't change owner.
Most interesting! Thank you, Rajko, for pointing this out So, the security in Linux is NOT what, for many years, I have believed it to be. I, and thousands of others, have been duped for all this time. However, does the ability to alter the permissions to read, write, execute of something which *I* "own" (but the ownership of which I cannot change) mean that any alteration can also have a flow-on to system files/applications outside my /home directory? BC -- Never run yourself down - let other people do it for you. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org