http://services.digg.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
http://api.search.live.net/crossdomain.xml
<allow-http-request-headers-from domain="* " headers="* "/>
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
http://webservices.amazon.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
http://s.ytimg.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
http://profile.ak.facebook.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
<site-control permitted-cross-domain-policies="master-only"/>
http://www.vimeo.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
https://api.ebay.com/crossdomain.xml
<allow-access-from domain="* "/>
In case of an API, it makes perfect sense to allow crossdomain flash access. After all, this is what an API is made for, allowing access for third party services.
It is only problematic if you don't have proper authentication, e.g. when a flash app can use the cookie of the user to authenticate.
If you want to provide access to an API, put the API on a separate subdomain. That's why api.flickr.com has an open crossdomain.xml file and flickr.com doesn't.
Adobe actually have a pretty good explanation of the security issues caused by an open crossdomain.xml file:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/cross_domai...
That's what I was referring to. OP listed domains which are probably used exclusively to provide an API, e.g. api.ebay.com, implying that the crossdomain files on these domains pose a security risk.
I was wondering if my comment is understandable, obviously it's not :) Thanks for the clarification!
tbh I just did a google for crossdomain ext:xml and pulled out the famous domains with * in the policy.