Comment by tptacek

9 hours ago

It was by design very difficult to secure.

Arguably, so is the web. A long series of extremely complicated and constantly changing data formats that are nightmarishly difficult to parse, which has to be done in C++ for speed reasons, combined with a full scripting language, which has to be JIT compiled for speed reasons, combined with 30 years of legacy and a security model that was completely ad hoc and more discovered than designed (e.g. the different variants of the same origin policy). Take that and add on top a browser community that doesn't philosophically recognize any limits on what the web is meant to do, so it just keeps getting more and more APIs until one day both Mozilla and the Chrome team decided to just stop pretending and build full blown operating systems on top of them.

I don't think Flash was harder to secure than HTML itself. People just gave up trying because browser vendors used security to purge the web of anything they didn't control.

  • Right, so that was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that. All three of Flash, PDF, and the browser DOM are expansive, ambitious metaformats, containers for every piece of technology that has ever had a bug.

    Your take on why Flash didn't survive is more cynical than mine. I genuinely think Apple threw up their hands at the prospect of attempting to solve a security problem on the same scale as the browser itself (something it took them a long time to get a handle on --- along with everyone else --- even after they put the kibosh on Flash).

You mean intentionally?

I think they just had the focus on features and speed and fps. Not security nor efficency (battery life).

  • Not intentionally, but it's one of a couple 90s designs (PDF is another one) that turned out to be goliath security problems just architecturally.