Adobe Reader XI (11.0.00) released

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by PaulBB, Oct 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PaulBB

    PaulBB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    708
    http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2012/10/announcing-adobe-reader-xi.html


    Download US language:
    -http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/11.x/11.0.00/en_US/AdbeRdr11000_en_US.exe-

    Other Languages:
    -ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/11.x/11.0.00/-
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2012
  2. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    got it earlier this morning :) looks exactly the same as v10
     
  3. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Updating this software reintroduces MSCONFIG item AdobeArm.exe, this item is not required to reside in MSCONFIG and can be unchecked at user discretion.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    What is that Adobe Arm for anyway?
     
  5. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    122 megabytes?
    for a PDF viewer? :D
     
  6. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    It's more than just a PDF viewer, though.

    Anyway, I wonder if they have introduced any change to their sandbox? Their sandbox is based on Chromium's sandbox, and unless I'm mistaken it would be exposed to the same issues Chromium's used to be. It would be nice if Adobe Reader XI renderer processes run with an Untrusted label as well. :D

    -edit-

    Where have you seen 122 MBs? The English installer is only 36.1 MB.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  7. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    It's part of the built-in updater. If you manually update Adobe Reader, you can safely disable that entry.
     
  8. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    User choice if you don't want third party software plugging MSCONFIG.
     
  9. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    If one right-clicks AdobeARM.exe, the description says Adobe Reader and Acrobat Manager. There's also a process named armsvc.exe, which is the service involved in updating in the background, so that the user won't need to answer an UAC prompt.

    Where have you seen it's related to the ARM processor?
     
  10. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    its what allows adobe to update in the backround without user input or manual updates. if you delete or disable it your adobe programs will not auto update. thats what it does simply.
     
  11. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    check the folder in Program Files/Adobe/'etc'...

    bloody bloatware if you ask me. :cautious:
     
  12. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Well... :D I personally use Chrome's PDF plugin applied to Chromium. It's all I need. :)

    I think they should allow the users to choose what they'd like to install. Many people just want a viewer, without any editing, etc.
     
  13. gugarci

    gugarci Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    288
    Location:
    Jersey
    All my Readers are saying they're current even though I'm still using version 10. Did you guys update Reader manually?

    Thanks.
     
  14. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    I update manually gugarci. See this comment.
     
  15. gugarci

    gugarci Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    288
    Location:
    Jersey
    Thanks.
     
  16. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    You're welcome.
     
  17. sm1

    sm1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    520
    Is it fully compatible with vista? It shows version 10.1 when I choose OS as vista in Adobe website. But I had no problem installing version 11 in my vista system:)
     
  18. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,791
    Location:
    Texas
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/10/adobe-reader-and-acrobat-get-another-layer-of-security/
     
  19. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
  20. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    Did you guys check the settings in the Preferences tab?
    Edit > Preferences

    I installed over the top (on XP).

    Looking in the Preferences tab for example at the JavaScript Category, I saw that it was enabled. As far as I remember I had it disabled. Some other items idem.

    (senior moment by me: I forgot to check the settings immediately after the install)
     
  21. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    I *really* wish their plugin was Enhanced Protected Mode compatible.
     
  22. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Good point, the are usually some fine-grained security tuning to be done even on Adobe's sandbox version of Reader X (now) XI.
     
  23. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Adobe Reader X installs to something like C:\Program Files\Adobe 10, while Reader XI installs to something like C:\Program Files\Adobe 11. I wonder if the same reflects in the Registry entries? That would explain why the settings weren't as you expected them to be?
     
  24. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I was actually thinking that the new enhanced sandbox would mean the renderer processes ran with an Untrusted label, but they still run with a Low label.
     
  25. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Fined grained via the Preferences Menu.
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.