Shockwave and Flash Player

  • Thread starter Kraut / Larry Stark
  • Start date
K

Kraut / Larry Stark

Am running Windows XP Home service pack 3 and was wondering how I can
tell what versions of Adobe Shockwave and Flash Player I am running.

I go to Adobe's Shockwave and Flash Player page and unlike Java update
page it does not tell what version of Shockwave and Flash Player I am
running so I usually just end up DLing the version there even if it is
the same as I already have.

TIA
 
A

Alias

Am running Windows XP Home service pack 3 and was wondering how I can
tell what versions of Adobe Shockwave and Flash Player I am running.

I go to Adobe's Shockwave and Flash Player page and unlike Java update
page it does not tell what version of Shockwave and Flash Player I am
running so I usually just end up DLing the version there even if it is
the same as I already have.

TIA

Flash:

http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Shockwave:

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/
 
M

Michael

Am 13.11.2010 17:04, schrieb Kraut / Larry Stark:
Am running Windows XP Home service pack 3 and was wondering how I can
tell what versions of Adobe Shockwave and Flash Player I am running.
I go to Adobe's Shockwave and Flash Player page and unlike Java update
page it does not tell what version of Shockwave and Flash Player I am
running so I usually just end up DLing the version there even if it is
the same as I already have.

If you are using Firefox as browser then simply use the
about:plugins
command and the version number of the plugins you use are displayed.
 
V

VanguardLH

Kraut said:
Am running Windows XP Home service pack 3 and was wondering how I can
tell what versions of Adobe Shockwave and Flash Player I am running.

I go to Adobe's Shockwave and Flash Player page and unlike Java update
page it does not tell what version of Shockwave and Flash Player I am
running so I usually just end up DLing the version there even if it is
the same as I already have.

TIA

http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/

If you don't have them installed, it tries to install them (you get
prompted).
 
G

glee

Kraut / Larry Stark said:
Am running Windows XP Home service pack 3 and was wondering how I can
tell what versions of Adobe Shockwave and Flash Player I am running.

I go to Adobe's Shockwave and Flash Player page and unlike Java update
page it does not tell what version of Shockwave and Flash Player I am
running so I usually just end up DLing the version there even if it is
the same as I already have.

In addition to the pages already mentioned:
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about
http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/


for a security update check of all products, try Secunia OSI or PSI:

http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/online/

http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/
 
V

VanguardLH

glee said:

In addition? Those are the SAME links that I gave.

Alas, when I've used this, it often gave not only inaccurate results but
also suggested *bad* changes that can render some features of Windows
inoperable. Unless you are intimate with the workings of Windows, this
should not be used by a uneducated user who merely follows their
"advice" without question. It can have you digging inside your OS which
means *you* have to know what you are doing. It can mess up your OS.
Use it as guide but only if you are an informed administrator of your
installation of Windows.

When I tried it, I quickly realized that some of its suggestions would
produce negative effects if I just ignorantly followed its results
(which is unfortunately how many users employ this tool). It got
uninstalled.
 
T

Tim Meddick

Simply go to the "Flash" folder (C:\WINDOWS\system32\MACROMED\Flash) and
check the "fileversion" field of the "Properties" page of each of the
installed files there....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
 
T

Tester

You need to load this page in each of your browsers:

<https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/plugincheck/>

I have tested the link in *IE8* and *Firefox 3.6.12* and the plugins are
different for both browsers. You also get a link to update and/or
download the necessary updates from the actual source (not from some
dodgy sites).

hth
 
C

Cheng Heng

23 minutes after I did.


He can't see your posts because he has filtered you
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be surprised if people say exactly the same thing as you do
because you are likely to be in killfile of most [sensible]
people.

hth
 
G

glee

VanguardLH said:
In addition? Those are the SAME links that I gave.


Alas, when I've used this, it often gave not only inaccurate results
but
also suggested *bad* changes that can render some features of Windows
inoperable. Unless you are intimate with the workings of Windows,
this
should not be used by a uneducated user who merely follows their
"advice" without question. It can have you digging inside your OS
which
means *you* have to know what you are doing. It can mess up your OS.
Use it as guide but only if you are an informed administrator of your
installation of Windows.

When I tried it, I quickly realized that some of its suggestions would
produce negative effects if I just ignorantly followed its results
(which is unfortunately how many users employ this tool). It got
uninstalled.

Semantics problem...you're reading it wrong.
I wrote:

In addition to the pages already mentioned:
<inserted links that were mentioned, for completeness>
for a security update check of all products, try Secunia OSI or PSI:
<inserted links of additional suggestions>

But even if I had not looked at your links, so what? Do you have a
copyright on them? People post replies here without seeing all the
previous ones, so things DO get repeated.

As for Secunia PSI, I've used it on my own and clients machines for
years now, and I've never seen anything that would come close to making
Windows inoperable or cause any damage. The worst I've seen from it is
saying that a program is not updated when it is....so no updates are
actually found.
 
V

VanguardLH

glee said:
Semantics problem...you're reading it wrong.
I wrote:

In addition to the pages already mentioned:
<inserted links that were mentioned, for completeness>
for a security update check of all products, try Secunia OSI or PSI:
<inserted links of additional suggestions>

But even if I had not looked at your links, so what? Do you have a
copyright on them? People post replies here without seeing all the
previous ones, so things DO get repeated.

As for Secunia PSI, I've used it on my own and clients machines for
years now, and I've never seen anything that would come close to making
Windows inoperable or cause any damage. The worst I've seen from it is
saying that a program is not updated when it is....so no updates are
actually found.

They have changed it over time. In its present non-beta version, it
reports even the tiniest hundredths of a change in version of a product
as a security risk. So, yeah, it's handy when you want to find out
which programs you may want to update (but you may NOT want to update
those programs since newer versions sometimes are worse than the older
versions, like losing features, new bugs, or backwards compatibility
with the hardware platform or other software on the same host). Secunia
PSI reports *every* miniscule version update as a security risk. Uh
huh. Yeah, like every update has something to do with security or
privacy issues.

I have it installed but I do NOT configure it to load on Windows startup
(but I also have to remember to manually exit the program using its tray
icon since the "X" close button merely minimizes it to a tray icon and
it keeps running otherwise). When I feel like checking on my programs
to see which have updates then this is a useful tool. However, just
because it reports that there is a newer version doesn't mean that I
want it or that the update has anything to do with security. In fact,
it will tell me about end-of-life products as though I'm supposed to get
rid of them because, gee, they might be security risks. For example, it
tells me that I should get rid of the old SysInternals' FileMon and
RegMon utilities despite I find them more usable and easier to use than
the replacement (Process Monitor). No thanks as I prefer the separate
older tools.

What Secunia PSI (or the more limited OSI which only scans for its
hardcoded list of 100 apps) claims is a security risk may not and often
is not anything to do with security at all but just reporting a newer
version of a program that it found installed on your host. And the
version might be trivial, like 2.0.1.053 to 2.0.1.057, which is not
likely a security update at that low a level of version change. So I
consider PSI more of a version checker than a security checker.
 
A

Alias

He can't see your posts because he has filtered you
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know.
Don't be surprised if people say exactly the same thing as you do
because you are likely to be in killfile of most [sensible]
people.

hth

That's there problem if they want to look stupid, not mine.
 
J

John Doe

Cheng Heng said:
He can't see your posts because he has filtered you
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody complained about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't be surprised if people say exactly the same thing as you
do

You are ignoring what actually happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
because you are likely to be in killfile of most [sensible]
people.

Someone who plays with an imaginary kill file friend is hardly
sensible!!!!!!!!!!! And the prior stuff is just another example of
how silly it can make you look!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
















Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: Cheng Heng <Cheng.Heng microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Subject: Re: Shockwave and Flash Player
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:08:52 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4CDF44B4.1D18DC11 microsoft.com>
References: <ggdtd61olqdj9lg1if2sg9oj0pfesv3q6q 4ax.com> <ibmo33$4qi$1 news.eternal-september.org> <ibn1b6$fuo$1 news.albasani.net> <ibn7hm$emf$1 news.eternal-september.org>
Reply-To: Cheng.Heng microsoft.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 29zjOaptuUVR4NZbglUGGw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
 
V

VanguardLH

NOTE: Troll's attempt to redirect replies into an unrelated "dump"
newsgroup thwarted by its omission in my reply. The following newsgroup
(not in the original list) added by the troll was omitted in my reply:

free.usenet

John said:
After someone else did, MouthGuard, you bozo.

Enjoy reading Alias' posts. I have him killfiled. Don't see him
anymore.
 
G

glee

VanguardLH said:
They have changed it over time. In its present non-beta version, it
reports even the tiniest hundredths of a change in version of a
product
as a security risk. So, yeah, it's handy when you want to find out
which programs you may want to update (but you may NOT want to update
those programs since newer versions sometimes are worse than the older
versions, like losing features, new bugs, or backwards compatibility
with the hardware platform or other software on the same host).
Secunia
PSI reports *every* miniscule version update as a security risk. Uh
huh. Yeah, like every update has something to do with security or
privacy issues.

I have it installed but I do NOT configure it to load on Windows
startup
(but I also have to remember to manually exit the program using its
tray
icon since the "X" close button merely minimizes it to a tray icon and
it keeps running otherwise). When I feel like checking on my programs
to see which have updates then this is a useful tool. However, just
because it reports that there is a newer version doesn't mean that I
want it or that the update has anything to do with security. In fact,
it will tell me about end-of-life products as though I'm supposed to
get
rid of them because, gee, they might be security risks. For example,
it
tells me that I should get rid of the old SysInternals' FileMon and
RegMon utilities despite I find them more usable and easier to use
than
the replacement (Process Monitor). No thanks as I prefer the separate
older tools.

What Secunia PSI (or the more limited OSI which only scans for its
hardcoded list of 100 apps) claims is a security risk may not and
often
is not anything to do with security at all but just reporting a newer
version of a program that it found installed on your host. And the
version might be trivial, like 2.0.1.053 to 2.0.1.057, which is not
likely a security update at that low a level of version change. So I
consider PSI more of a version checker than a security checker.

Really? It does not do that here. Are you using the Advanced mode or
the Simple mode. Advanced mode clearly shows what if any security risk
is reported for a version of a program. Some end of life programs
clearly show a security risk while other show that none exist. It does
not tell you a new version is a security update unless it is. I have
older versions of some programs and it shows the security updates for
those versions, it does not push the newer version.
Sounds like you did not spend much time with the utility.
 
V

VanguardLH

glee said:
Really? It does not do that here. Are you using the Advanced mode or
the Simple mode.

If advanced mode is where users are to decipher the results of this
product's scan then that should be the only mode available. Yes, I've
used Advanced mode but Simple mode is the default and obviously the mode
that most of its users will use.
Advanced mode clearly shows what if any security risk
is reported for a version of a program.

If Secunia had a report regarding a security risk for an older version
of a program then why don't they actually provide a link to that report?
All I see is it says there is a security risk, NOT *what* is that
security risk.

Sorry, but I no longer have older versions of the programs that it
complained about before to see if it reported a threat or not with those
programs. See below on why users will assume ANYTHING reported by this
product equates it to a security risk. I found no option in this
program to show a log of its previous scans. Their "Historic
Development" graph is just a graph and doesn't link to any log.

As mentioned, and even if a newer version addressed a security risk, you
may not want that newer version. Features may be lost (i.e., the author
dropped some features that you do use). The risk may be as a
vulnerability vector into your host but only if you don't apply other
security measures, like anti-virus, firewalls, HIPS, etc.
Some end of life programs
clearly show a security risk while other show that none exist. It does
not tell you a new version is a security update unless it is. I have
older versions of some programs and it shows the security updates for
those versions, it does not push the newer version.

True, as I assumed a "security" product would only report security
vulnerabilities, not "gee, there's a newer version available". As for
the remaining end-of-life products that I chose NOT to update (since it
requires uninstalling them and installing a different product that I
don't like), it says the threat level is "-". They couldn't use "None"
to make that clear? Besides, as stated, I don't expect a security
product to be WARNING me about any program that is not a security risk
and for which they provide a report.

This product should NOT prompt about any end-of-life product, or any
other product, UNLESS there is a reported security risk associated with
that program. That the user has end-of-life products is none of its
concern and it should not be issuing false alarms UNLESS there it has a
security risk.
Sounds like you did not spend much time with the utility.

Indicate where in this program it provides any help files. The user has
to guess only from its GUI and the text therein as to how to use this
product. "?" hotspots for bubble help does NOT equate to a structured
document, such as a user's manual (separately provided or as a Help menu
in the program).

Why would a security product that detects NO security risks in an
end-of-life product, for example, then shove a prompt in the user's face
to strongly influence them to review those end-of-life products? If
there was no security risk in anything scanned then the product
shouldn't lead the users around as if there were security risks. I
don't expect the oil light in my car to start flashing when my garage
light turns on. A security product should remain focused on *security*.
End-of-life programs, or any programs, that have no security risk should
NOT be reported by this product or even included in any list. I can
reproduce the end-of-life false alarm since I kept those defunct
versions. I have no log to prove or disprove that the minor versions it
reported for other programs had security risks or not. You get a bar
chart but nothing to tell you its specifics regarding its "rating".

Something else to mention is that this is an HTA (HTML Application; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application). That means it is
affected by the settings you establish for Internet Explorer. If, for
example, you have disabled Adobe's Flash Player (or don't have it
installed) then their history bar chart won't display. Right-click on
the bar chart and you'll see it is a Flash AX object. If you have
scripting disabled, this HTA won't run at all and instead you get a text
page telling you to enable scripts. Their system requirements
(http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/system_requirements/)
make no mention regarding the need for Flash, IE, and scripting enabled
in IE. I don't care for HTAs because they often fail to function
properly if the user has chosen to lockdown Internet Explorer with
settings that affect HTAs.

It's an okay tool but it has its quirks. Be sure that any program it
alerts on actually has a security risk, and that upgrading to remove the
security risk can encumber a new security risk in the new code along
with bugs, loss of features, or incompatibilities. Just because a
program has a security risk doesn't mean it can be harvested on YOUR
computer setup.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top