On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:08 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
> > need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so there is
> > no
> > reason to install the 32bit. Unless you want to replace the 64bit by
> > the
> > 32bit.
>
> Hmm. Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has
> flash-plugin.x86_64 11.0.1.129-0.1.el6.rf rpmforge
>
> whereas the adobe-linux-i386 repo has
> flash-plugin.i386 11.0.1.152-release @adobe-linux-i386
> (Build Date: Sat 24 Sep 2011 02:45:27 AM BST).
So, why would one replace a 64bit flash-plugin with a 32bit one ?
If the 64bit version was used, it simply would have worked.
Unless I misunderstood, the 32 bit version is the current ("most secure")
release, 152, whereas the 64 bit version is not current, 129.
You indeed misunderstood:
1. There is _now_ also a 64bit 152 release
2. There was no security update release by Red Hat for the flash-plugin.
That is the only source that I can track properly, I do not visit the
Adobe flash-plugin website daily.
3. Feel free to report new flash-plugin release through the github.com
web-interface at: http://github.com/repoforge
Evidently, a number of stock end-user applications, such as Firefox,
Thunderbird, and the like, have security holes as well as bugs, and thus need
regularly kept current.
Do you have any proof of security problems ? Was there a security advisory
for this release ?
--
-- dag wieers, [email protected], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [email protected], http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
