No I'm not disabling Java. Even if this threat is real it's most likely intended to to target large corporations, not home users.
I searched on my PC and I don't think I even have Java.Flamezdudes said:I second this. Also, how do I even check what version of Java I have? And does this affect iPads also?Queen Michael said:Okay, so how do I disable Java?
You wouldn't actually miss anything. Or at least it's extremely unlikely that you're visiting any websites that have Java applets. It's mostly used for interactive things on the webpage, however, Flash has largely overtaken that. There are still very few places that do have Java stuff on there, such as games (I know I've seen one website) but, as I said, it's sort of not common.Doclector said:What would disabling java do? What wouldn't work anymore? Please tell me, I can't sleep until I know.
Yes, I'm sure malicious users would have the presence of mind to addcanadamus_prime said:No I'm not disabling Java. Even if this threat is real it's most likely intended to to target large corporations, not home users.
Yeah yeah point taken, but I'm still not going to freak out every time some piece of fear-mongering news comes floating across the web.DoPo said:Yes, I'm sure malicious users would have the presence of mind to addcanadamus_prime said:No I'm not disabling Java. Even if this threat is real it's most likely intended to to target large corporations, not home users.
if (homeUser == true) {
System.exit(0)
} else {
// do damage
}
to any attack they try.
In case you missed it:FEichinger said:And here I am, proud to be a Linux user who doesn't have to give a flying about M$-executables and a plugin I only use in a development environment anyways! Wheeeeee =D
But the hackers behind the Metasploit penetration testing software say they have studied the exploit and found that it could just as easily be used to attack machines running Linux or Mac OS X, given the appropriate payload.
In my previous experiences with Java and Jscript, disabling the script alone in my browser did not prevent arbitrary code execution using Java.Imat said:That won't fix it, however, as Java =/= JavaScript. Disabling the actual Java plugin will work. Disabling the JavaScript plugin will cause 99.99% of websites to fail and still won't fix the problem.
It seems to me they'd make an exception to their patching rule if the security risk were truly this huge. I'm thinking they're already working on it, and will release a patch as soon as it has tested working.
To be fair, it's not like you are immediately and always a target if you have Java. You do have to visit a specific website, at least that's what the news says. It's more of a "you are potentially in danger, beware", so by being careful, you should be safe.canadamus_prime said:Yeah yeah point taken, but I'm still not going to freak out every time some piece of fear-mongering news comes floating across the web.DoPo said:Yes, I'm sure malicious users would have the presence of mind to addcanadamus_prime said:No I'm not disabling Java. Even if this threat is real it's most likely intended to to target large corporations, not home users.
if (homeUser == true) {
System.exit(0)
} else {
// do damage
}
to any attack they try.
I didn'tUNHchabo said:In case you missed it:FEichinger said:And here I am, proud to be a Linux user who doesn't have to give a flying about M$-executables and a plugin I only use in a development environment anyways! Wheeeeee =D
But the hackers behind the Metasploit penetration testing software say they have studied the exploit and found that it could just as easily be used to attack machines running Linux or Mac OS X, given the appropriate payload.
It's a Java exploit, not a JavaScript exploit. Simple as that.Atmos Duality said:In my previous experiences with Java and Jscript, disabling the script alone in my browser did not prevent arbitrary code execution using Java.Imat said:That won't fix it, however, as Java =/= JavaScript. Disabling the actual Java plugin will work. Disabling the JavaScript plugin will cause 99.99% of websites to fail and still won't fix the problem.
It seems to me they'd make an exception to their patching rule if the security risk were truly this huge. I'm thinking they're already working on it, and will release a patch as soon as it has tested working.
For my first semester of math at university, we needed to use a plugin for the learning/homework platform (MyMathLab) that used Java but not Jscript, and I was compromised by it through Java despite it being disabled.
If this exploit is only known for Jscript, then fine. Turn off Jscript.
Following that experience, I prefer to err on the side of caution with widespread exploits, especially when those who are responsible for patching it haven't said anything about the exploit or a possible fix.
Brother! We art the same on that lazy updates. Safe from the future by failing to update the present. I have not updates my white blood cells for years.Owyn_Merrilin said:And my laziness when it comes to installing updates has paid off; I'm still on 1.6 XD
The article stated that it was ill-adviced to use older versions. As they may contain other bugs or exploitable weaknesses.Owyn_Merrilin said:And my laziness when it comes to installing updates has paid off; I'm still on 1.6 XD
That's pretty much always true, though. I think we can all agree that Java is as full of holes as a sieve, no matter what version you're on.Nikolaj Bilgrau said:The article stated that it was ill-adviced to use older versions. As they may contain other bugs or exploitable weaknesses.Owyn_Merrilin said:And my laziness when it comes to installing updates has paid off; I'm still on 1.6 XD![]()
I read this in Liquid Snake's voice2fish said:Brother! We art the same on that lazy updates. Safe from the future by failing to update the present. I have not updates my white blood cells for years.Owyn_Merrilin said:And my laziness when it comes to installing updates has paid off; I'm still on 1.6 XD