Microsoft issues IE 10 Flash flaw fix for Windows 8
Will work with Adobe to plug future holes
Hot on the heels of an update that fixed the recent zero-day flaw discovered in Internet Explorer versions 7, 8, and 9, Microsoft has released a separate patch that solves issues related to the Adobe Flash Player component of Internet Explorer 10.
The current Flash vulnerabilities only affect IE 10 running on Windows 8 and Windows 2012 server, meaning most Windows users are in the clear. But although Redmond's latest operating systems have yet to ship to retail customers, they are already available to volume licensees and subscribers to Microsoft's MSDN and TechNet programs.
Previous versions of IE displayed Flash content using Adobe's Flash Player plugin. But in IE 10, Microsoft has made Flash an integral part of the browser, with the goal of providing a "plugin-free" browsing experience. As a result, Flash security fixes for IE 10 must come from Microsoft, not Adobe.
Initially, Microsoft said it wouldn't offer a patch for the flaws until after Windows 8's official launch date, but it recanted after it drew criticism from users who worried that the delay meant IE 10 patches would lag behind Adobe's own bug fix cycle.
Yunsun Wee of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group tried to allay those fears on Friday with a blog post announcing both the fix and Redmond's security strategy with regard to IE 10 and Flash.
According to the post, Microsoft will "coordinate" with Adobe to release IE 10 patches in conjunction with Adobe's regular, quarterly update cycle. In addition, Redmond says it may issue emergency updates outside of its own monthly security bulletin cycle, should the "threat landscape" require it.
The current fix is being made available via Windows Update, so most Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 users should receive it without taking any action, unless they've disabled automatic updates. Users who want to install the update manually, on the other hand – for whatever reason – can download it from Microsoft's Knowledge Base. ®
Re: Good general purpose heuristic
On Saturday 22nd September at 20:16 RICHTO said, "But the main alternatives - Firefox, Safari, Chrome all have far more vulnerabilities than current IE versions! Are we to go without a browser?!"
I know that historically Firefox (as an example) has, during certain time frames, had a larger number of bugs and vulnerabilities than say IE. Now, I am not saying that I don't believe you here 'RICHTO', but I would be interested to any data upon which this statement is based (assuming of course that any data has not been either sourced from, or sponsored by, Microsoft - either directly or indirectly).
From figures I have seen previously, Microsoft's biggest past failure has been the time frame within which many issues were addressed. Again, I would be interested to see any independent data on this too.
But your comment does hint at a valid point, and one that I see almost daily. That is, people saying things like, "Oh. I won't have any problems as I don't use IE any more". (Comments akin to this are also posted on The Register from time to time).
IMO the IT community in general, with all it's whinging about IE, leads many to think that other browsers are safe and secure. There's a lot of Microsoft bashing that goes on - some valid, some not - but the IT community does both itself and others a disservice when it fails to equally address similar issues in other UA's.
Given the past record of both IE and Flash regarding exploits I am sure that hackers are wetting themselves with excitement at this news.
Two losers in the security game are teaming up to give you what? Built in vulnerabilities? Surely given the experience of Flash on OSX with late patches etc.people should be very wary of this.
Time to ditch IE I think.
Re: Good general purpose heuristic
Oh,'RICHTO' also stated "far more vulnerabilities than current IE versions!"
Would you perhaps concede RICHTO that 'current IE versions' is part of the problem, in that it's plural! Surely Microsoft would be better placed and received if that were current version and also a single current version that was not so deeply hooked into the OS, and one that was actually backwards compatible with respect to OS's?