Adobe Flash Flaw Gets More Dangerous

[BoomyBoy]

Four out of five internet users are still vulnerable to a critical Adobe Flash flaw two weeks after it was discovered, according to a report from security company Trusteer.

The research polled 2.5 million Rapport browser security service subscribers. It points out that it's the biggest flaw on the internet as 99% of PC users have Flash on their browsers.

Flash is really efficient platform for distributing malware because it's installed on 99% of computers, compared to only 65% for Internet Explorer and 35% for Firefox.

Yet 80% of respondents were running outdated and unpatched versions of Flash, while 84% were running a vulnerable version of Acrobat.

News source: PCPro

[Growled Member]

Time to update people. Come along, now.

[bob21]

And no word on what exactly the flaw is .. anywhere .

[Lord Ba'al]

Updated already :yes:

[Lechio]

Four out of five hum? This makes you think, or better yet, rethink how software updates are handled.

But apparently, and according to some members of Neowin, there's no need to change this reality:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591436066

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591436070

And no word on what exactly the flaw is .. anywhere .

Sure there is, just not to the general public.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Lechio

[carmatic]

And no word on what exactly the flaw is .. anywhere .

i think that you need to be part of some 1337 hacker group to know this early...

[Eric Veteran]

Sounds like Adobe needs to get on the ball. Why on earth would they have Adobe Updater and it doesn't update one of their most commonly used products? I fail to see how this is anyone else's issue but the vendor of the Flash plugin.

[ViperAFK]

Holy **** I wasn't updated lmao

[Deathray]

I absolutely hate flash and how widespread it is used...

Not as large of a scale, but also quicktime

Basically, any software company that finds it important to ensure they have background services ready to update you on all the bull**** extra software you don't want, and rarely, and in slow-motion, they provide the meaningful patches for security and features

[sundayx Veteran]

I haven't updated. I hate Adobe Updater.

[random_n]

I remember back around the Flash 5 days that there was an occasional update for it straight through Windows Update. I think it's really time for Microsoft to open up the Windows Update service for third party use. Not for the hosting, but just for the scheduling, policy control, and ability to update on systems that are never used with an administrative account.

[Deathray]

I remember back around the Flash 5 days that there was an occasional update for it straight through Windows Update. I think it's really time for Microsoft to open up the Windows Update service for third party use. Not for the hosting, but just for the scheduling, policy control, and ability to update on systems that are never used with an administrative account.

Well imagine if they did open it up, and the windows update tries updating some random software, but that software causes problems... who will people blame? people would only notice the problems after they ran windows update

Alternatively, perhaps the testing procedure could be as stringent as that of microsoft before they issue patches, but then what company would spend the money on trying to make decent/safe software?

[Antaris Veteran]

Four out of five hum? This makes you think, or better yet, rethink how software updates are handled.

But apparently, and according to some members of Neowin, there's no need to change this reality:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591436066

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591436070

Sure there is, just not to the general public.

You're taking one topic, and trying to relate it to another unrelated thread. This thread is not about how software updates are handled, its about Adobe's flash player having a critical flaw. Don't spin this around, and don't PM me just to inform me that you've linked my post out of context.

[ilovetech]

already updated....but i dont use it that often..i do most of the browsing on 64bit firefox build which do not have flash as of yet. :)

[Mike]

Well imagine if they did open it up, and the windows update tries updating some random software, but that software causes problems... who will people blame? people would only notice the problems after they ran windows update

Alternatively, perhaps the testing procedure could be as stringent as that of microsoft before they issue patches, but then what company would spend the money on trying to make decent/safe software?

People who knew enough about computers would blame whoever gave the update (eg Adobe for flash) and the average joe would blame Windows just like they do when they have bad hardware or drivers installed.

[Lechio]

You're taking one topic, and trying to relate it to another unrelated thread. This thread is not about how software updates are handled, its about Adobe's flash player having a critical flaw. Don't spin this around, and don't PM me just to inform me that you've linked my post out of context.

Sure it is related to the other thread, where you've defended that a centralized updater serves no purpose in Windows, and shouldn't be provided by the OS maker. Look at the percentage of exploitable Windows systems out there. It serves to show how important that feature would be in a Windows system.

I've PM'ed you due to have referred a post of yours, so you could comment on this thread. I'm sorry if that bothered you, but that's what seemed fair to do. Cheers.

[Antaris Veteran]

You obviously missed my first post in that thread :-

A centralised update platform for all software is potentially a good thing, it would allow all system and application updates to come through one channel, that is certainly less of a headache for the end user, who may have multiple different applications, each with its own update feature, etc.

That being said, it is not Microsoft's job to provide an update manager for every other 3rd party application out there, if they provided a platform to do so, fair enough, but that mean that Microsoft may end up having to Support updates for 3rd party applications, which is ridiculous.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591434536

My argument is that it is not Microsoft's resposibility to do it...

[Argi]

Abobe never fail to disappoint when it comes to security-related matters. \o/

[Ace]

Would Internet Explorer's protected mode or Chrome's sandboxing feature help prevent bad things happening to your computer even if you had the vulnerable version of Flash Player?

[Lechio]

You obviously missed my first post in that thread :-

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=591434536

My argument is that it is not Microsoft's resposibility to do it...

And that's where your argument gets flawed. It is indeed Microsoft's responsibility to provide such a tool for others to use, they make the platform.

Do you think it would be practical if every single software company started to make their own package management tool? And why should a software company provide a way for other competitors to install and update their products? You can argue that the same applies to Microsoft as they are a software company like any other, but they are not. They are the software company that makes the platform. They have to provide the same resources that their own applications use to all of the other competitors.

Microsoft has to be the one to create standards for others to use, Microsoft has to open its platform to other competitors.

[Prince Charming]

And that's where your argument gets flawed. It is indeed Microsoft's responsibility to provide such a tool for others to use, they make the platform.

Do you think it would be practical if every single software company started to make their own package management tool? And why should a software company provide a way for other competitors to install and update their products? You can argue that the same applies to Microsoft as they are a software company like any other, but they are not. They are the software company that makes the platform. They have to provide the same resources that their own applications use to all of the other competitors.

Microsoft has to be the one to create standards for others to use, Microsoft has to open its platform to other competitors.

Lay of the EU koolaid there. To a degree, it is in Microsoft's BUSINESS INTERESTS to open up areas of their platform to encourage development on their platform, thus driving sales of their platform. That is where it ends. MS have absolutely no responsibility to maintain other developers work, or provide mechanism for udpating other developers work whatsoever. It just doesn't work like that. Windows is a closed source product that is sold as-is. It is not an open source product that is freely available for other companies to use components of as they see fit.

[Beastage]

And that's where your argument gets flawed. It is indeed Microsoft's responsibility to provide such a tool for others to use, they make the platform.

Do you think it would be practical if every single software company started to make their own package management tool? And why should a software company provide a way for other competitors to install and update their products? You can argue that the same applies to Microsoft as they are a software company like any other, but they are not. They are the software company that makes the platform. They have to provide the same resources that their own applications use to all of the other competitors.

Microsoft has to be the one to create standards for others to use, Microsoft has to open its platform to other competitors.

Yes they should... and Adobe should pay for the entire development and maintenance costs related for it, so unless Adobe finances it... why MS should do it?

[ViZioN]

I tend to agree with Antaris here. While it would be a good thing to be able to get updates for third party applications in one place, I don't think it's Microsofts responsibility to ensure that their competitors products are updated. Why should it be?

[BoomyBoy]

What does it to do with Adobe Flash Flaw?

[Lechio]

It's anti-competitiveness and abuse of position from Microsoft.

For example, why should IE benefit from being upgraded via Windows Update and other software of the same category cannot use this resource? Why should any application that is made by Microsoft benefit from resources that others don't have access to?

Microsoft applications like IE or Windows Media Player already have an unfair advantage, as these come installed with the OS.

It's a very abusive practice and it will be sanctioned if Microsoft doesn't make any efforts to change this.

Who will benefit from the outcome of more openness of the Windows OS? The user. Just look at the mess that it is now when it comes to installing and updating software on the Windows platform. This case of Adobe reflects just that, 80% of Windows computers proven exploitable. If this isn't an eye opener then what else does it take?