EMBEDDING OBJECTS

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

My only concern is that to allow embedding of objects like youtube video is that we open the door for other flash based players (and other types) that may contain malicious code. This may be being overly cautious as this will likely not happen but better safe than sorry. If I am mistaken however that this is not a likelihood then please let me know . Security again was my only concern .

[CountryBoy 0]

Captain,

To address your concerns ..

from what I have read at http://www.forums.invisionize.com (IP Board software forum) when you enable the flash content in the forum atmosphere there will be a button appear above the posting area AND/OR in the signature page (near the link and picture buttons) that will prompt the user to enter 3 bits of information, the width, the height, and the url of the flash object .. a very small amount of code added to the post ..

The following was pasted from the Macromedia Flash MX White Papers on the Adobe website ..

Macromedia Flash movies that contain malicious code

While never reported in the wild, it is theoretically possible for a Macromedia

Flash projector or a Macromedia Flash movie played through the Macromedia

Flash standalone player on a Windows operating system to perform malicious

acts. This risk only occurs when malicious content is played back in a

standalone Macromedia Flash Player and does not affect movies playing in a

browser.

More information about this issue can be found at the Macromedia Security

Zone (http://www.macromedia.com/security/).

As mentioned above, users should only run a Macromedia Flash projector or

movie locally if the file comes from a trusted source and has been scanned with

an updated virus scanner.

Again, this is only a theoretical issue, and has not been experienced in the wild.

I hope that this reponse and the associated links will answer any questions that you may have about security issues and eventually lead to the implementation of allowing flash objects to be utilized at the board.

Thanks,

CB

Edited May 10, 2007 by CountryBoy

[CountryBoy 0]

Captain,

I forgot to address your concern with YouTube video content ..

As far as YouTube and MySpace videos are concerned, the video content on both of these sites are uploaded to the site in question, converted from the original members format to an .flv video which in turn is hosted directly on the site itself and played thru a player specifically written into the html code for playing those movies.

Flash objects are .swf files that are hosted remotely and played thru the flash player that is associated with the browser on the users computer.

apples and oranges

CB

[no name 1]

Since this thread is still going on...

Immigration(VJ) is hardly a topic that needs media links/embeds. I can get all the media I want on other frivolous sites, I come here for information. I vote against it.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

My only concern is that to allow embedding of objects like youtube video is that we open the door for other flash based players (and other types) that may contain malicious code. This may be being overly cautious as this will likely not happen but better safe than sorry. If I am mistaken however that this is not a likelihood then please let me know . Security again was my only concern .

given the issue of active x controls and other weird things that are floating around out there, i agree with your choice to limit such due to security.

[Mags 112]

Since this thread is still going on...

Immigration(VJ) is hardly a topic that needs media links/embeds. I can get all the media I want on other frivolous sites, I come here for information. I vote against it.

A valid point, indeed.

[CountryBoy 0]

My only concern is that to allow embedding of objects like youtube video is that we open the door for other flash based players (and other types) that may contain malicious code. This may be being overly cautious as this will likely not happen but better safe than sorry. If I am mistaken however that this is not a likelihood then please let me know . Security again was my only concern .

given the issue of active x controls and other weird things that are floating around out there, i agree with your choice to limit such due to security.

If you can produce valid evidence that any malicious activity related to bolded text in your post can be positively linked flash objects, in much the same way that I demonstrated in my previous post that it cannot, then I would definately be on board with you .. but as mentioned in my post above, it is possible with a standalone flash media player but not embedded in a browser.

If security is the true issue then the research material that I posted previously should satisfy those with concerns; if anyone has other issues with the idea then please post it here.

devilette, yes this thread is still going on even though you already voiced your opinion previously and that in and of itself should have ended the entire discussion but I am not trying to change your mind, it is quite obvious that you are against the whole thing, for whatever reason .. thanks so much for taking the time to voice your opinion, it is duly noted...

[Mags 112]

If you can produce valid evidence that any malicious activity related to bolded text in your post can be positively linked flash objects, in much the same way that I demonstrated in my previous post that it cannot, then I would definately be on board with you .. but as mentioned in my post above, it is possible with a standalone flash media player but not embedded in a browser.

If security is the true issue then the research material that I posted previously should satisfy those with concerns; if anyone has other issues with the idea then please post it here.

devilette, yes this thread is still going on even though you already voiced your opinion previously and that in and of itself should have ended the entire discussion but I am not trying to change your mind, it is quite obvious that you are against the whole thing, for whatever reason .. thanks so much for taking the time to voice your opinion, it is duly noted...

Isn't that the idea of having a thread, to voice everyone's opinions? D stated WHY she was against it, just as you have stated WHY you are for it. It is a natural part of a debate. You can't tell her in a roundabout way to be on her merry little way just because you don't agree.

She stated, quite appropriately, that this IS an immigration forum, it isn't MySpace or anything similar. The whole idea of this forum is to supply information regarding the immigration process, it isn't to have flashy links, or media playing all and sundry's flashy stuff etc etc.

Personally, I like seeing some of the funny pics in people's siggy's, I like seeing some people's timelines, but I certainly wouldn't want to be faced with embedded media on a daily basis. Reasons? The same as D's, this is an IMMIGRATION forum, not DisneyLand. That would just be TOO much, IMO.

Just my 0.02c of course.

Perhaps we should all ask why YOU are so determined to argue the case FOR embedding media when there are more people responding in this post saying they don't particularly want it.

Edited May 11, 2007 by mags

[no name 1]

If you can produce valid evidence that any malicious activity related to bolded text in your post can be positively linked flash objects, in much the same way that I demonstrated in my previous post that it cannot, then I would definately be on board with you .. but as mentioned in my post above, it is possible with a standalone flash media player but not embedded in a browser.

If security is the true issue then the research material that I posted previously should satisfy those with concerns; if anyone has other issues with the idea then please post it here.

devilette, yes this thread is still going on even though you already voiced your opinion previously and that in and of itself should have ended the entire discussion but I am not trying to change your mind, it is quite obvious that you are against the whole thing, for whatever reason .. thanks so much for taking the time to voice your opinion, it is duly noted...

Isn't that the idea of having a thread, to voice everyone's opinions? D stated WHY she was against it, just as you have stated WHY you are for it. It is a natural part of a debate. You can't tell her in a roundabout way to be on her merry little way just because you don't agree.

She stated, quite appropriately, that this IS an immigration forum, it isn't MySpace or anything similar. The whole idea of this forum is to supply information regarding the immigration process, it isn't to have flashy links, or media playing all and sundry's flashy stuff etc etc.

Personally, I like seeing some of the funny pics in people's siggy's, I like seeing some people's timelines, but I certainly wouldn't want to be faced with embedded media on a daily basis. Reasons? The same as D's, this is an IMMIGRATION forum, not DisneyLand. That would just be TOO much, IMO.

Just my 0.02c of course.

Perhaps we should all ask why YOU are so determined to argue the case FOR embedding media when there are more people responding in this post saying they don't particularly want it.

I would like to know why you keep harping on it when the site admin has said he doesn't want to?

Edited May 11, 2007 by devilette

[Fandango 1,439]

oh dear...where's the popcorn?

[no name 1]

oh dear...where's the popcorn?

[CountryBoy 0]

If you can produce valid evidence that any malicious activity related to bolded text in your post can be positively linked flash objects, in much the same way that I demonstrated in my previous post that it cannot, then I would definately be on board with you .. but as mentioned in my post above, it is possible with a standalone flash media player but not embedded in a browser.

If security is the true issue then the research material that I posted previously should satisfy those with concerns; if anyone has other issues with the idea then please post it here.

devilette, yes this thread is still going on even though you already voiced your opinion previously and that in and of itself should have ended the entire discussion but I am not trying to change your mind, it is quite obvious that you are against the whole thing, for whatever reason .. thanks so much for taking the time to voice your opinion, it is duly noted...

Isn't that the idea of having a thread, to voice everyone's opinions?

I agree totally that it is a great idea to voice opinions, but the still comment was a little much expecting it to be over because she was against it.

D stated WHY she was against it, just as you have stated WHY you are for it.

I am not necessarily for or against the idea, but if someone wants to mention size of the object, speed of download, and security then I feel compelled to do my part in explaining the way that the embedded media works .. if there were valid points brought against the use of them, then I would definately agree with the poster .. if someone doesn't like the idea because of the way it looks, then they should definately post that

It is a natural part of a debate. You can't tell her in a roundabout way to be on her merry little way just because you don't agree.

I never said I didn't agree with her .. actually to me it doesn't make much difference, I actually thanked her for posting her opinion

She stated, quite appropriately, that this IS an immigration forum, it isn't MySpace or anything similar.

there is the myspace thing again, people do not understand that flash objects are not full length movies or something .. most of the time it is like the moving flag in my signature

The whole idea of this forum is to supply information regarding the immigration process, it isn't to have flashy links, or media playing all and sundry's flashy stuff etc etc.

I couldn't agree more with you about it being about family immigration, totally. considering that, maybe all pictures should be banned because they are just as distracting as flash objects. If someone wants to argue about a flash object being about a movie or something then they should go do some research and see what they are exactly.

Personally, I like seeing some of the funny pics in people's siggy's, I like seeing some people's timelines, but I certainly wouldn't want to be faced with embedded media on a daily basis.

There is that embedded media statement, would you like for me to give you a link as to what embedded media actually is?

Reasons? The same as D's, this is an IMMIGRATION forum, not DisneyLand. That would just be TOO much, IMO.

Just my 0.02c of course.

Perhaps we should all ask why YOU are so determined to argue the case FOR embedding media when there are more people responding in this post saying they don't particularly want it.

Only 3 posted against the idea because they don't like the media itself and my guess is that they are unaware as to what embedded media actually is, assuming that it is full length movies or something

another posted about size of the file, I addressed that issue with factual data

another posted about page load time, I addressed that issue by requesting additional information about their concerns

another posted about security, I addressed that with factual data about security risks (or lack thereof) and an explanation as to the manner in which the media is integrated into the post

[CountryBoy 0]

If you can produce valid evidence that any malicious activity related to bolded text in your post can be positively linked flash objects, in much the same way that I demonstrated in my previous post that it cannot, then I would definately be on board with you .. but as mentioned in my post above, it is possible with a standalone flash media player but not embedded in a browser.

If security is the true issue then the research material that I posted previously should satisfy those with concerns; if anyone has other issues with the idea then please post it here.

devilette, yes this thread is still going on even though you already voiced your opinion previously and that in and of itself should have ended the entire discussion but I am not trying to change your mind, it is quite obvious that you are against the whole thing, for whatever reason .. thanks so much for taking the time to voice your opinion, it is duly noted...

Isn't that the idea of having a thread, to voice everyone's opinions? D stated WHY she was against it, just as you have stated WHY you are for it. It is a natural part of a debate. You can't tell her in a roundabout way to be on her merry little way just because you don't agree.

She stated, quite appropriately, that this IS an immigration forum, it isn't MySpace or anything similar. The whole idea of this forum is to supply information regarding the immigration process, it isn't to have flashy links, or media playing all and sundry's flashy stuff etc etc.

Personally, I like seeing some of the funny pics in people's siggy's, I like seeing some people's timelines, but I certainly wouldn't want to be faced with embedded media on a daily basis. Reasons? The same as D's, this is an IMMIGRATION forum, not DisneyLand. That would just be TOO much, IMO.

Just my 0.02c of course.

Perhaps we should all ask why YOU are so determined to argue the case FOR embedding media when there are more people responding in this post saying they don't particularly want it.

I would like to know why you keep harping on it when the site admin has said he doesn't want to?

You have obviously not read this thread in its entirety, you quoted the captain inappropriately previously stating that he limits "embedded objects" which he doesn't he limits html functionality for security reasons .. totally different than embedded objects .. then you misquoted him when you said that he didn't want embedded objects; if he had I would have stopped posting immediately .. he offered posters the opportunity to state why implementing embedded objects isn't a security risk, which is what I did ..

to be honest with you, unless you are his wife .. speaking for him might not please him (this is just my opinion)

[eau_xplain 2]

A lot of interesting points being raised here. Thank you CB for such informative data.

I myself am not technically capable to make an assessment on embeded objects in signatures. I think that people have been very creative in the different objects (gifs, jpgs, etc.) that they have added to their signatures. Although I don't enjoy all of them (some are a bit much) I see them all as a person's way of asserting their individuality on the board. Embeded objects would be another form of expressing one's identity in the signature. I don't see a problem as long as it does not impinge on site security and functionality and it does not violate the TOS.

[marieke 1]

HERE is a fairly large size interactive flash media file (so more than likely it would never be embedded in a signature) and it is only 43 kb in size .. the two cat pictures in your signature are 76 kb combined ..

i tried this earlier posted link by countryboy...

jeez, thanks for that!!!

Edited May 11, 2007 by marieke