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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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, [log in to unmask], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [log in to unmask], http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]