On 04/22/2011 09:04 PM, Craig White wrote: <>
the implication being that the specific version mentioned doesn't have known security and crash problems which I think both have been found to be incorrect implications.
i do not know what 'implications' you are implying, but i believe this will show what is correct:
+++
====== Red Hat Security Advisory
Synopsis: Critical: flash-plugin security update Advisory ID: RHSA-2011:0451-01 Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Extras Advisory URL: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0451.html Issue date: 2011-04-18 CVE Names: CVE-2011-0611 ======
1. Summary:
An updated Adobe Flash Player package that fixes one security issue is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6 Supplementary.
The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having critical security impact. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, <snip>
3. Description:
The flash-plugin package contains a Mozilla Firefox compatible Adobe Flash Player web browser plug-in.
This update fixes one vulnerability in Adobe Flash Player. This vulnerability is detailed on the Adobe security page APSB11-07, listed in the References section. Specially-crafted SWF content could cause flash-plugin to crash or, potentially, execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2011-0611)
All users of Adobe Flash Player should install this updated package, which upgrades Flash Player to version 10.2.159.1.
4. Solution:
Before applying this update, make sure all previously-released errata relevant to your system have been applied.
<snip>
7. References:
https://www.redhat.com/security/data/cve/CVE-2011-0611.html https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#critical http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb11-07.html
+++
are do you know something red hat does not?