Is adobe labs 64 bit flash player vulnerable latest exploit ?

Btw, for those running Ubuntu and with partner repo enabled, latest adobe has been uploaded, good news for those using x32 adobe flash, bad news for us x64 alpha users, no updates yet.

 

Is it verified that the x86_64 version of Flash for Linux is affected by this? I am using v10.0 r45.

 

Would that be "adobe-flashplugin 10.1.53.64 1lucid1", as opposed to "flashplugin-nonfree"?

 

steve, check the source under properties, if its from partner repo, thats the one. By the way, real bad news for users of x64 flash.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html

I am praying for html5 or some equivalent, I have no desire to use dreaded nsplugin wrapper to run x32 flash here.

 

Just for the hell of it I installed 10.1 on my 64 bit Lucid. It works in Opera but not in FF.
I used the install routine that i always use for 64 bit flash plugin from labs.
BTW. Will apparmor default FF profile and bohdi.zazen Opera profile really protect ?

 

bodhi zazen's profile is for the older opera 10.10, the newer one has a different file structure.

 

I am still using 10.10, thanks for the cautionary re. the newer versions. If I do a side by side install how would file associations behave - I have a lot of web archive (mht) files that are set to open with Opera, but if I have two Operas running side by side there will surely be conflict as to which version will open the mht files ?


Edit: I see that the tarball provides for adding a suffix like 'test', so assume that the profile folder will be ~/.opera test and that the file open with dialogue will
show Opera and Opera Test ??

Apologies for somewhat OT.

 

File associations would depend on your preferred browser or you can right click and choose where to open with. I am on 10.60, the speed is just too addictive for me to go back to 10.10


File as

 

Deleted due to human multi-tasking fail. Nick.

 

Finally, thanks Nick.
Bad news is that it has been removed from the site, so anyone who has not installed it previously will have to do without. Lousy state of affairs - Big FAIL.

 

Agreed.


http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/ (Product details tab)

 

There is a ppa for flash...

https://launchpad.net/~sevenmachines/ archive/flash

 

Great observation, thanks Nick.

 

That's 10.0.r45 which is vulnerable.

I wonder if there are any POC websites up that exploit this? I would be interested in seeing how it affects an AppArmor secured browser.

 

Yes so would I.

 

Indeed. On the other hand - as mentioned earlier in this thread - it seems that there's no risk under Linux if ONLY flash is installed since libauthplay.so is missing.

 

Oh boy, here we go again. Confusion reigns. According to Nick it's not vulnerable ...

The Linux 64 bit beta/alpha version 10.0.r45 runs the 10.1 code.

 

Yep and specially if one is not using Adobe Reader, I just cant get to use x32 flash at all.

 

I just got the new version 10.1.53.64ubuntu0.10.04.1 on Mint (32 bit).

 

I got it as well on Lucid here, I yielded and installed x32 flash, so far running good, my previous experience with Intrepid and x32 flash was quite bad. Runs fine on full screen as well.

 

I got mixed up... was looking at installing 32bit flash on 64bit OS on a different tab at the same time.
64 bit 10.0.45.2 IS vulnerable.

http://osdir.com/ml/debian-bugs-rc/2010-06/msg00605.html

Cheers, Nick

 

I will do the same. Did you get it direct from adobe's site or from repos. I installed from repo (old version) but reloading didin't yet install 10.1.

 

I did it from Synaptic which showed latest version available about an hour back so I guess servers are getting synced. Its the best way to do so and would be automatically updated in future. I have no issues with full screen but if you do, take a look here. http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/fixing-fullscreen-flash-in-ubuntu-1004.html

 

every thing is ok here i guss its been pached

http://secunia.com/advisories/40026

http://secunia.com/advisories/40026#comments