Adobe Security Updates For Flash and Shockwave

nlewis writes "Adobe has finally released updates for their Flash and Shockwave Players. These updates should, in theory, address the security issues outlined in this security bulletin. This issue has been mentioned here previously. Don't expect an update to the equally flawed Acrobat Reader until sometime tomorrow, though."

Google Chrome install?

[Brian Gordon]

The installer doesn't work for Chrome. Flash reports [adobe.com] that I'm using 10,0,22,87 but the latest is 10.0.32.18. That means I have to extract the plugin from the installer with winrar and install it manually....... come on, get on top of this, Google.

Re:Not to worry about Reader!

[Taikutusu]

I honestly cannot even fathom what they could be possibly putting into the install binary to make it that large. The SumatraPDF install is 1.43MB...it'd still fit on a floppy!

That said, I really wish Sumatra would incorporate decent printing support.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux

[AnyoneEB]

Agreed. As Google has complained about [google.com] on the topic of browser sandboxing, Linux is a bit behind in protecting programs from their own exploits. On the other hand, the Ubuntu project is actively working on using AppArmor [wikipedia.org] more, which can greatly limit the damage an exploited program can do by listing which files and directories each program is allowed to read/write/execute.

Re:Not to worry about Reader!

[tyrione]

Does SumatraPDF and the rest remotely support the following PDF standards? http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/standards.html [adobe.com]

Re:Not to worry about Reader!

[Serious Callers Only]

Does SumatraPDF and the rest remotely support the following PDF standards?

Do we need or want it to? I know I don't. PDFs are a useful format for interchange and storage of documents while preserving formatting. I don't use SumatraPDF, but I imagine it covers a subset of features which covers reading most PDFs in existence (like the reader I use).

I don't want embedded flash, or any of the other bullshit features listed on that page as standards. The first one (for example) claims to support the long-term preservation of digital documents - perhaps they use extra long-lasting bits to store the data? The PDF explaining the standard is full of obvious advice which has nothing to do with PDFs at all, and some features which belong more properly in CMS software for all documents, like signing or user tracking....

If you do feel you need those sort of misfeatures then please feel free to suffer and use the Adobe Acrobat/Adobe Reader, but I'll continue to avoid it - because it is an invasive, resource hogging, security risk which is more about getting Adobe a foothold on every desktop than it is about facilitating document exchange/storage.

The PDF format is useful. Adobe's attempts to take over everything on the corporate desktop with it are not.