Zero day vulnerability with Adobe flash player

[jlazzaro]

just a heads up...probobly wise to shun the listed domains.

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2...oiting-flash-zero.html

 

[CalvinHobbes]

I uninstalled flash and just don't go to any sites that require it. It sucks that a lot of sites still use it when things like this can happen so easily. I imagine adobe will have a fix in a few months.

 

[ViRGE]

The latest version (9.0.124) is not vulnerable, it's just the older versions (9.0.115 and lower).

 

[Aarondeep]

thx for the info virge. Just updated all my systems, but i did some reasearch and found that all versions are affected including 9.0.124 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/29386/discuss

 

[Lemon law]

In MHO, adobe is being extremely lame here. Anyone who regularly goes to the secunia security website with any regularity knows by experience that both the adobe PDF application and the adobe flash player are regularly red flagged as security holes. At least in the case of the case of the adobe PDF application, incremental updates can be preformed and, for a limited time, that takes of the secunia red flag. In my case I got tired of playing that game and chucked it entirely, and instead use the fox it PDF reader.

But in the case of the adobe flash player, Adobe seems to be totally clueless, the adobe flash player is almost impossible to remove without the special adobe remover, and then at the near speed of light, their new version seems to again be red flagged as a security hole.

One would like to think Adobe would become more security conscience with future versions or at least make updating to more secure versions less of a hassle, but that seemingly is a mis placed hope from a security clueless company.

Tell me again why I should trust adobe?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: aarondeep
thx for the info virge. Just updated all my systems, but i did some reasearch and found that all versions are affected including 9.0.124 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/29386/discuss

That notice has been retired. It's based off of Symantec's earlier faulty notice, in which they thought they found a new hole that affected all versions. In reality it was just an earlier hole that 124 was put out to fix.