Re: libpepflashplayer.so
On Saturday 07 May 2016 23:25:35 Sven Hartge wrote:
> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.
> > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build
> > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium." Chromium still
> > being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are
> > presumably still supporting it, so it is not that much larger a risk
> > than it was before. Google Chrome, of course, will simply not get
> > updates.
>
> You may get an up-to-date Chromium from Debian, but you will _not_
> get an up-to-date 32bit Pepperflash Plugin for it anymore.
Not even security updates? Quotation? "to support building Chromium" could
include it, when it is an intrinsic part of Google Chrome.
But anyway, it is not relevant. Which is more insecure? Chromium on Debian
updated as far as I can, or Windows with an improperly managed security
system?
Hoi polloi are not going to choose their mothers' birthday presents in order
to be as secure as possible on Debian.
Upgrading to Jessie wouldn't solve it because but I would still have the 32
bit problem.
I am open to suggestions for a solution, but "never use Flash" is not
realistic. Even once she has done this photo album on her husband's
computer, there will be something else some time.
She does no banking etc on her computer, and her husband does none while she
has her computer switched on, because she accesses the router wirelessly, and
I do not consider home wireless ever totally secure. If it were my own
router, the wireless would be turned off when not in use, but it is not my
router.
This Flash is a flipping* nuisance. The sooner it is finally laid to rest the
better.
Lisi
* http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flipping
Reply to: