User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; Win64; x64; rv:6.0a1) Gecko/20110522 Firefox/6.0a1 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; Win64; x64; rv:6.0a1) Gecko/20110522 Firefox/6.0a1 Adobe still has not released the stable x64 Shockwave Flash player pligin for x64 Windows; the latest preview 3 version is 10.3d162. However, Plugin Check counts this version as outdated and provides the link to Adobe website, where (more exactly, on Adobe Labs) this plugin cannot be updated because it's already the latest available. Very likely, Plugin Check doesn't take into account the difference between x86 and x64 Firefox platforms and compares the current Flash plugin with the latest x86 version, which is 10.3.181.14. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Add-ons -> Plugins -> "Check to see if your plugins are up to date" 2. Wait for checking and read the info about Shockwawe Flash. Actual Results: Status: Outdated Version Expected Results: Status: Latest version, no any problems Bug 265536, Bug 565398, Bug 615817 are all about non-Windows systems, but can be related somehow to this bug because it's a server issue.
Plugincheck only addresses released versions of plugins. Previews, betas, and RCs aren't factored into the detection routines, and we won't be adding separate entries for preview releases. The current shipping version of the released/supported version of Flash is 10.3.181.22, so anything less will appear as outdated and/or vulnerable depending on the version.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(In reply to comment #1) Excuse, I cannot agree with a statement: "The current shipping version of the released/supported version of Flash is 10.3.181.22". You suppose that every plugin should have the x86 and x64 versions with exactly the same versioning system, and releases of them are fully synchronised. Although this usually has a place, in this particular case it's wrong. Of course, it's not a problem of Firefox developers, it's a problem of Adobe which we cannot fix from out here and need to live with for a while. Current preview version of x64 Flash is outdated (in fact), but no other up-to-dated version does exist instead. Good AI in plugin check should recognise this situation and offer the relevant suggestion; current suggestion "You have outdated version, go to Adobe website and download the last one" is irrelevant. I suspect that the same problem can occur with other plugins where x86 and x64 versions are different. My suggestion: trace the releases of x86 and x64 plugin versions separately (at least in the cases where it's really important). If no stable plugin is available, inform the user that plugin is not officially supported. Yes, there is no reason to check the existence of beta and prerelease versions, need to simply notify about possible problem. For example: Status: Unsupported version or Status: No stable version available
I don't suppose anything. I am telling you my rationale for not adding it to plugincheck. The versions you have installed are unreleased software that are not supported by Adobe, and are considered technology previews. They are provided for testing, development, and beta testing, and are not generally considered release quality. There's no guarantee that a technology preview is up to date, and the Square page on Adobe is pretty clear about not using it on production machines (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/square/) They are not widely being used, and the people who install previews generally understand that there are additional risks in using them. The purpose of plugincheck is to provide users with information on the latest, stable release of a plugin. Technology previews aren't that, and when a vendor recommends they be used for testing only, I'm not inclined to treat them as a stable release, and that the person using them will understand the risks. If they don't, then suggesting the update is probably in their best interest. When Adobe releases their 64-bit version as something other than a technology preview, we'll support it.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.