C3M wrote:

> www.thegaminguniverse.com
>
> in this site users have talked about introducing flash for things like
> signitures and for use in posts, i am not a representitve of GU however i am a
> scout and would like to collect info on this matter
>
> NOW the administraitors of the site do like the idea, however paranoia kicks
> in since macromedia as made flash such a wide spread aplication, it can be used
> for potentioly DEADLY results, aparently flash can be used to upload viruses,
> it can crash browsers and the content withen them can be obscean and hidden
> from the administraitors. the results of malitous actionscript on this forum
> can mean some very bad situations, so i was hoping you could offer some
> assitance in this matter, what sollutions has the macromedia company developed
> to combat malitous flash files in a forum.
>
> bellow is a quote from many of the concernd members of the gaming universe:
>
> ZEO: "I remember one time we decided to try HTML, and I specificly went and
> TESTED it, and a simple little command can cuase an entire forum to have
> dancing smiles all over the place. Anther one, some leet master did over at
> Gamer's end, crashed the entire category.
>
>
> Flash can do much the same thing. Also they can contain viruses now, we
> cannot, and will not, be able to vaccinate every flash video. We cannot allow a
> meduim for virtually udetectable virus distribution on the forums.
>
> the only thing I can possibly see is maybe letting admins do it, for the
> purpose of promting things like GUradio, contests, projects ect. And most of us
> don't know what we are doing with flash, so I doubt that will happen."
>
> INORI:"Interactivity is not necessary for signatures; they're just there to
> put personal stuff in. Sound would be a bad thing to allow in sigs. Many
> people, including me, hate when a web page makes sound upon loading; I don't
> want to hear your sig every time I open a thread you've posted in. Moreover,
> what happens if four or five people in the same thread have noisy sigs? All you
> hear is worthless gabble.
>
> Regardless of how 'trusted' of members we restrict SWF in sigs to, it simply
> doesn't accomplish enough to be worthwhile. If you have a flash animation you
> want to show off, put it on your own webpage and link to that page from your
> signature."
>
> ZEOS DOOMSDAY THEROY:"what happens if we get something like the Narshe take
> over again, eh? say we have it for sods an admins only. Something like that
> happens again, and GU is now kiddepornland with virused flash files everywhere.
>
> We'd be DEAD in 30 seconds. It would take us YEARS to revcover, we'd have te
> get a new URL because ours would now be on every ban list for every net nanny
> program, and search engine filter ever made, and parents would probably stop
> thier kids from coming. Plus there would possibly be charges filed agaist us,
> our host, and possibly the majority of our staff. By NOT having the flash
> support architecture exist, it exceddingly cuts down the opportunity to exploit
> our site, both fault protection wise, and after the fact wise, should it fall
> into an exploiters hands, because normally the board is what is exploited, not
> the FTP.
>
> Its too big a risk, and we can't react instantly at any time, some places
> don't even allow signatures for this reason. Plus the conflicting sound issue.
> Go shop around, GU probably offers about the highest level of goodies for a
> board its size. when you have less then 100 members, that's one thing, ut when
> you reach a certain size, you become a "big name" organization, prone to abuse
> and legal attention at inoppotune times.
>
> This isn't about you. Its about pros and cons and the cons jsut outwieght the
> pros right now. if there was a better way to controlit, it might be a better
> option." (ROFL!)
>
> i would aprecait anything you can offer, thank you
>
> note: this seams to be the place for this topic o.o, i hope i got it right ;)