- 18 Hot IT Certifications for 2014
- CIOs Opting for IT Contractors Over Hiring Full-Time Staff
- 12 Best Free iOS 7 Holiday Shopping Apps
- For CMOs Big Data Can Lead to Big Profits
InfoWorld - Adobe's Flash Player software is on 99 percent of Internet-connected desktops, offering up multimedia and video capabilities on a multitude of popular Web sites such as YouTube. But the Adobe Flash platform has been beset by a rash of security problems that give intruders potential access to computers running the software.
Issues have included one recent vulnerability described as "frighteningly bad" by a security expert. Technologists, however, disagree on the severity of Flash's weaknesses. Some say Flash is merely a victim of its own success, attracting attention from those with bad intentions but being no worse off than other software platforms when it comes to its inherent security. An alternate opinion is that Adobe simply lacks tight security practices in its internal development procedure and so has become a preferred vector for cyberthieves.
[ Keep up on good security practices with Roger A. Grimes' Security Adviser blog and with our Security Central newsletter, both only at InfoWorld. | Learn why Web application security is a growing problem for enterprises. ]
A review of Flash-focused security incidents of late raises eyebrows:
Is Adobe immature when it comes to security? Adobe, says Foreground CIO Mike Murray, suffers from immaturity in its software development processes: "Adobe is just big enough that its issues [are starting] to impact the whole Internet."
"They haven't yet developed the security discipline around their software," although that is changing, he says. He contends that Adobe is only now coming to grips with the fact that its software's popularity means it needs to be more security-conscious in development practices, noting that Microsoft had to come to the same realization several years back, which resulted in its Security Development Lifecycle processes.
As an example of Adobe's security naivete, Foreground reported a nuanced issue in which hackers could exploit the Flash and ActionScript same-origin policy for domains, which limits code execution to the domain from which it originated. Through Flash, attackers could disguise malicious code, upload the code to a site, and enable it to steal a password or cause other problems, Murray says.
"[Adobe] could fix it if they changed the same-domain origin policy to be more restrictive, but many sites rely on the laxness of that policy," Murray says. Thus, a fix could cause incompatibilities on Web sites.
Adobe says its security practices are up to snuff Adobe rejects the notion that its internal security practices for software development are immature. "That's flat-out wrong," says Brad Arkin, Adobe's director of product security and privacy. The company's security practices are among the "most mature of any [software developer]," he says.
Adobe's current approach to security, its Secure Product Lifecycle (SPLC) plan, has been in place since Adobe's merger with Macromedia in 2005. "[SPLC] defines how we integrate software security into the way that we build software," Arkin says.
Through SPLC, Adobe starts out a release by examining specifications in design for any potential security problems. Threat modeling and automated and manual code reviews are performed along with security testing, Arkin says. "In Flash Player, every code change and every new feature is evaluated for its security impact to the product," he says.
"Adobe is vigilant in doing everything that we can to prevent any new vulnerabilities from being introduced and also [in] reacting swiftly to any vulnerabilities that are identified after we ship a product," Arkin says. "A lot of our practices are similar to what Microsoft does."
Adobe's software is targeted by bad actors because it is deployed on so many PCs, Arkin says. The company, he notes, has had regularly scheduled security updates for Flash Player this year. And he says there have been no calamities associated with the security of Flash or Adobe's Acrobat or Reader technologies.
Arkin downplays Foreground's issue with the same-origin policy: "There's nothing new. It's not news. The same-origin policy is a standard model for Web security," Arkin says. Allowing uploading of content to a site presents inherent risks, he notes: "If you allow somebody to upload code to your Web site, then it's not your Web site anymore."
That's why Web developers need to make sure they have been careful in reducing risks when it comes to how their apps handle the uploading of "active content," such as user-generated content, to a Web site. They should perform careful input validation to restrict the types of files that can be uploaded, Arkin says: "If anything is submitted outside the boundaries of what you're expecting, you would reject it."
Thomas Kristensen, CTO at security firm Secunia, agrees that the same-name origin issue is not a security flaw by a natural vulnerability. "It is by design, and it is expected for Flash to behave in this way," he says, and to avoid the vulnerability means the Web site developers need to take the security responsibility, such as by allowing content to be uploaded only to a different domain than the primary one.