Possible suspicious update labeled as Adobe Flash Player

Computer Help and Discussions Windows Security
1

Today I had a notice to update Adobe Flash Player. As I proceeded, a pop-up from my anti-virus program (Comodo) warned me about a trojan. Not sure what the pop-up read exactly because it disappeared before I could really look at it, but I did notice the word trojan. I noticed the update was downloaded from "get3.adobe.com". This is suspicious because as far as I know the usual updates come from "get.adobe.com". I immediately uninstalled the program and re-installed from get.adobe.com.

I ran virus scans and nothing was detected.

I just wanted to warn you guys & gals that there may be a suspicious update.

2

If it came from Adobe.com then you would've had the legit version.

Albeit the new updated version re-introduces an old bug they supposedly fixed months ago where the video is split in two halves with a horizontal green line separating the video. I'm sticking with the previous vulnerable version until they fix it, as this new version is useless to me.

3

It's good that you check your downloads so closely razz.

This link goes to show how users can be tricked by Flash (even though it's Android)

http://majorgeeks.com/story.php?id=35605

4

Hello All,

I hadn't been on in a while and noticed this post. Ironically yesterday I received an Adobe notice to update Flash. Being totally ignorant with these damn computers and Adobe in particular that is so difficult to update I just backed out of it and decided to let my good friend help me with it as we can hook up remotely.

I ran all of my scans and nothing that would cause heartburn appeared. Would you good folks suggest that I just let sleeping dogs lie and just keep an eye peeled for any invasion?

Take care and have a good one.

Warlock

5

yes I also got get3 on the update today, checks out ok esp since it's a subdomain of adobe dot com

6

Adobe uses wildcard subdomains; allowing them to generate multiple subdomains all pointing to the same content. This is primarily done for analytic or load balancing reasons. I've personally used wildcards to circumvent poorly designed web content filters, back in high school.

tl;dr: If it's pointing to *.adobe.com, it's safe.

7

tl;dr: If it's pointing to *.adobe.com, it's safe.

In my view, if it comes from adobe.com :-

Intent - probably non-malicous

safety - only when vulnerabilities are removed - not in our life time :o

8

In my view, if it comes from adobe.com :-

Intent - probably non-malicous

safety - only when vulnerabilities are removed - not in our life time :o

HTML5, y u no more popular?

9

I never auto update, and always get my Adobe from File Hippo, and install off-line.

http://filehippo.com/search?q=adobe+flash

All good so far, including the latest version.

10

I tend to agree with alan here. :lol:

11

Good point Alan. In that case; replace "safe" with "unintentionally harmful"

Side note: HTML5 isn't more popular because it sucks. Browser vendors can't decide on spec standards, fallbacks for legacy browsers are inconsistent and it's just painfully complex to do anything non-primitive. That said; HTML5 will eventually dominate because it still sucks less than Flash.

12

If it's pointing to *.adobe.com, it's safe.

That's what I was trying to point out in the second post of this topic in my very first sentence.

With every Flash Player update I'm always wondering what they've broken in their neverending quest to remove vulnerabilities.

Is it me or did Adobe's acquistion of Flash ruin it?

13

Is it me or did Adobe's acquistion of Flash ruin it?

I agree with you Andavari.

14

I remember when Adobe ate up Metacreations.