On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Joel Rees <email@example.com> wrote:
>> So your objection is definitely a valid point but it is not specific to
>> flash. Its a general principle of not exposing your administrative
>> password to user accounts that might have been infected by the outside
> The principle is general, sure, but the application to Flash is
> specific -- that the plugin should go in the .mozilla/plugins folder
> of each user that uses it, and nowhere else.
> It's not as good as having a separate box for the bank, but separate
> accounts are not as bad as using the same account for posting to (say)
> Digg or slashdot and for logging in to the bank.
> Leaving Flash out of the account you log into the bank with
> strengthens the walls against the un-foreseen accidents.
> Likewise, if you don't have Flash loaded in the account you usually
> use to do admin tasks, you have a little more breathing room when
> you're checking the docs while you tweak the system, without using a
> separate computer.
>> Am I understanding this correctly? I guess we often make choices
>> between convenience over security. It usually depends on the context
>> and the administrator of the system whether it is an acceptable choice.
> True. It's a little inconvenient.
> In fact, if you have 138 users on the company network, and you have to
> set up multiple accounts for each one, installing and updating Flash
> and other brick-brack on some accounts and not on others, maybe you
> have to decide between writing a script to handle the install across
> the LAN and just installing/updating one global location.
> For personal and family machines, however, I prefer the local install,
> since the kids insist on having it.
Okay. Now we are on the same page. Agree wholeheartedly.
After the discussion I am switching to using flash this way on my
machines. In any case I have to do it by hand as I use the 64 bit
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
users mailing list
To unsubscribe or change subscription options: