WARNING: Adobe Reader risks
Bill Drake
betas on an unsuspecting public without adequate warning.
The Adobe Reader link off Adobe's main page now tells you
that Adobe Reader 9.0 and Adobe Air are the latest download,
without informing you there has been a version update. The
page looks identical to the old 8.1.2 page - there is NO
NOTIFICATION of a major version change.
What they DON'T tell you until the product is installed is these
items are still in beta. You find that out once the download is
installed.
Furthermore, when you go to the Downloads page at the
Adobe site and select the Reader 8.1.2 download, it takes
you back to the 9.0 page and offers you the 9.0 download.
There is no way to get the 8.1.2 package back.
At this point, I don't know if the webpages are inaccurate or
the product is still beta. And the only reason I'm posting this
here is because I don't have any idea how to let people know
about this in a widespread manner - other than this newsgroup.
The security and system integrity risks of using beta software
are well known to members of this newsgroup. As a result of
this irresponsible action on Adobe's part - without any kind of
explanation or rationale for their action - I now recommend the
same caution when dealing with Adobe on software matters
as I would in dealing with shady or corrupt software
manufacturers.
Best I can do for now. <tm>
Bill
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
> that Adobe Reader 9.0 and Adobe Air are the latest download,
> without informing you there has been a version update. The
> page looks identical to the old 8.1.2 page - there is NO
> NOTIFICATION of a major version change.
>
> What they DON'T tell you until the product is installed is these
> items are still in beta.
Acrobat Reader v9 is not a beta build, although it does include access to
Adobe.com (beta)
http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2008/06/adobe_reader_9_is_here_1.html
> Furthermore, when you go to the Downloads page at the
> Adobe site and select the Reader 8.1.2 download, it takes
> you back to the 9.0 page and offers you the 9.0 download.
> There is no way to get the 8.1.2 package back.
Acrobat Reader v8.1.2 has been superseded by v8.1.2 Security Update 1
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb08-15.html
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3967
That being said, what does all this have to do with Windows Update, Bill?
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
Bill Drake
Update 1 is actually a Microsoft KB update. If you check
Add/Remove after Reader V8.1.2 Security Update 1 is installed,
you will see it refers to MS KB403742 as the required fix.
I assume from this that KB403742 is what is actually being
referenced by Adobe's fix, but this is also incompletely and
imperfectly documented.
The problem is that historically, Adobe have left behind old
product installation "mortal remains" when doing updates using
their reader-based update procedure. As a result, the best fix
for problems with Adobe Reader has been to uninstall the old
product using Add/Remove and then go to Adobe's website
and get their latest-'n-greatest. That's what I did, which caused
me to run into the problem described in my original post.
However, in this case, you end up with an installation of a newer
product and a website reference when checking the new product
indicating that the new product is still a beta release. Ergo, this
thread.
My solution to the problem, at least in the short term, is to use the
Update procedure on an *existing* V8.1.2 installation to get the
V8.1.2 Security Update 1 - bypassing the Adobe website that
gives you V9.0 without properly warning you that a major version
update has occurred.
As detailed above, and to reiterate, the linkage with this newsgroup
is that V8.1.2 Security Update 1 is actually an MS KB403742 update.
Best I can do for now. <tm>
Bill
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> The Adobe Reader link off Adobe's main page now tells you
>> that Adobe Reader 9.0 and Adobe Air are the latest download,
>> without informing you there has been a version update. The
>> page looks identical to the old 8.1.2 page - there is NO
>> NOTIFICATION of a major version change.
>>
>> What they DON'T tell you until the product is installed is these
>> items are still in beta.
>
> Acrobat Reader v9 is not a beta build, although it does include
> access to Adobe.com (beta)
> http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2008/06/adobe_reader_9_is_here_1.html
>
>> Furthermore, when you go to the Downloads page at the
>> Adobe site and select the Reader 8.1.2 download, it takes
>> you back to the 9.0 page and offers you the 9.0 download.
>> There is no way to get the 8.1.2 package back.
>
> Acrobat Reader v8.1.2 has been superseded by v8.1.2 Security Update 1
> http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb08-15.html
> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3967
>
> That being said, what does all this have to do with Windows Update,
> Bill?
>
PA Bear [MS MVP]
> Update 1 is actually a Microsoft KB update.
The security bulletin
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb08-15.html is not a
Microsoft KB or page.
I can't find hide nor hair of KB403742, Bill. Got a link? Are you thinking
of a MS Security Advisory
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/archive.mspx)?
> ...As a result, the best fix
> for problems with Adobe Reader has been to uninstall the old
> product using Add/Remove and then go to Adobe's website
> and get their latest-'n-greatest. That's what I did, which caused
> me to run into the problem described in my original post.
What problem, and how does all of this pertain to Windows Update?
--
~PA Bear
![Harry Johnston [MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWpkBAPqvc839nzAtvH7xG03OwcxExyoyKpBgg3G7rKJeLEHQ=s40-c)
Harry Johnston [MVP]
> Hi, PA Bear. The linkage, is that Adobe Reader V8.1.2 Security
> Update 1 is actually a Microsoft KB update. If you check
> Add/Remove after Reader V8.1.2 Security Update 1 is installed,
> you will see it refers to MS KB403742 as the required fix.
No, it just refers to KB403742. I believe this is an ID number internal to
Adobe. AFAIK, Microsoft don't actually have any property rights to the letters
"KB" so there's no particular reason Adobe can't use them.
Harry.
Bill Drake
first I have heard of Adobe using the same system as MS.
And if so, this is again utterly irresponsible without proper
documentation of the whys and wherefores. It makes no
sense at all for Adobe to use something which looks so much
like the MS System - all the way down to the exact same
format and six-digit-number. The potential for confusion is
way too high.
I stand behind my original warning and my rationale for
making the post here.
Bill
Shenan Stanley
Archived indefinitely:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/ef03a286b47f861d/fad50c47ba538944?lnk=st&q=author%3ABill+author%3ADrake#fad50c47ba538944
Bill Drake wrote:
> Hi, Harry. If this is truly an internal Adobe reference - it is the
> first I have heard of Adobe using the same system as MS.
>
> And if so, this is again utterly irresponsible without proper
> documentation of the whys and wherefores. It makes no
> sense at all for Adobe to use something which looks so much
> like the MS System - all the way down to the exact same
> format and six-digit-number. The potential for confusion is
> way too high.
>
> I stand behind my original warning and my rationale for
> making the post here.
Same "system"?
KB stands for "Knowledge Base" and almost any software (and even hardware -
computing or not) manufacturers' have a knowledge base of
problems/fixes/etc. Some call it knowledge base and use "KB" and some call
it something else (FAQs, Stuff you need to know, etc.)
In any case, the article you seem to be referring to:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb403742
Is clearly part of the Adobe "kb" system (notice the "kb.adobe.com"
address.)
Microsoft does _not_ have a KB article by that number:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/403742
(Microsoft KB articles can be referenced by
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/###### <-- sub in MS KB Article Number for
######)
However - Adobe has many other articles in their KB, which you can search
using:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/microsites/microsite.do
As for "It makes no sense at all for Adobe to use something which looks so
much like the MS System - all the way down to the exact same format and
six-digit-number" <-- not *exactly* the same format, perhaps they worked
their way *up to* a six digit number. There's only so many ways you can do
a good knowledge base system and have it work...
If you are confused - you obviously did not read and comprehend the entirety
of the situation. Many fiction books (paperbacks) are about the same size,
they mostly have covers, page numbers, title pages - many have dedication
pages and most have a UPC code on the back cover that allow them to be
scanned for identification and charged for purchase. They come from many
different publishers, many different subjects are contained within created
by many different authors and are sold in many different places possibly at
many different prices despite the recommendation of the UPC code that may be
on the back cover recommending a certain price but having the *same number
of digits* in the system as the other books. However - if you look at the
title, the author, the subject etc - you can see the differences quite
clearly.
In the end - you seem to have a complaint about Adobe... You do not seem to
have a complaint about "Windows Update".
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Bill Drake
that there are similarities between KB systems and the
methodology is similar between all. The same is true of
cosmological star catalogs.
However, nobody in the Astronomy department would
consider it responsible to use the same star-catalog name
for two different star catalogs. It's confusing and stupid,
so different star catalogs have different names.
If Adobe want their stuff to be easily differentiated from
Microsoft's - to prevent the very trap into which I fell - then
they should at least have the form of AKBxxxxxx or have a
different numbering system such as KBXXX-xxxx. This only
makes sense.
Regardless, this is deviating from the purpose of this
newsgroup.
EOT
Bill
Harry Johnston [MVP]
> In any case, the article you seem to be referring to:
> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb403742
Huh. OK, I was wrong - it isn't an internal code after all. I don't think much
of their search engine; when I fed it this number it returned no matches.
Feeding it the entire code (including the prefix kb) works but it didn't occur
to me to try that at the time.
Harry.
Shenan Stanley
Archived indefinitely:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/ef03a286b47f861d/fad50c47ba538944?lnk=st&q=author%3ABill+author%3ADrake#fad50c47ba538944
Bill Drake wrote:
> I disagree as far as the rationale is concerned. I understand
> that there are similarities between KB systems and the
> methodology is similar between all. The same is true of
> cosmological star catalogs.
>
> However, nobody in the Astronomy department would
> consider it responsible to use the same star-catalog name
> for two different star catalogs. It's confusing and stupid,
> so different star catalogs have different names.
>
> If Adobe want their stuff to be easily differentiated from
> Microsoft's - to prevent the very trap into which I fell - then
> they should at least have the form of AKBxxxxxx or have a
> different numbering system such as KBXXX-xxxx. This only
> makes sense.
>
> Regardless, this is deviating from the purpose of this
> newsgroup.
Actually - the point is that this whole discussion was off topic. From the
beginning. It had nothing to do with Microsoft. It had to do with Adobe.
So in-as-far-as this thread (from start to finish) goes - it is on-topic.
I figure Adobe differentiated itself just fine with at least these two
facts:
1) When you go to Adobe KB articles - you do not visit
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/######/, you visit
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb###### (Notice
"Microsoft" in one, "Adobe" in another. If you cannot tell the difference
from that - that would not be your issue. I would *not* expect them to
consult with Microsoft (or any other company they deal with in other ways)
on the design of their web page/knowledge base/etc.)
2) The article speaks of Adobe products. If nothing else gave away where
you were/what you were reading about - the fact that each page says "Adobe"
on it with some product information about a specific (or multiple) "Adobe"
product - that should be enough.
In the end - what I see here is similar (albeit not all that similar in
format beyond the fact both are now at six digit article numbers) designs
with similar purposes (to distribute information about the product(s) in
question and/or answer specific questions or address specific issues about
said product(s)) - and I would expect no less.
I find nothing confusing about going to a Microsoft web page and pulling up
an article on a Microsoft product and then *perhaps* being able to use that
same number and pull up an article in some other knowledge base for some
other company. I would consider it - at best - coincidental that they both
had a knowledge base article by the same number. Actually - I probably
wouldn't notice - because I would know where I was and what products I was
looking for help on and would read the articles in question to comprehend
whatever it was I needed to to figure out anything else. ;-)
The flaw in your logic ("same star-catalog name for two different star
catalogs") is simple to point out:
You are thinking of the knowledge base article numbers as some external
differentiator that *all* products share. They are not. They are like the
page numbers in a book. If page numbers are printed in a book - I bet you
will find the same page numbers in another book. What differentiates them
is the title of the book (web page address), the words on each page (the
content of each knowledge base article) and *possibly* the subject matter
for the overall book (Microsoft products vs. Adobe Products.)
By your logic - every book would have to number their pages with some unique
identifier so it could not be confused with the page numbering of any other
book.
Harry Johnston [MVP]
> I find nothing confusing about going to a Microsoft web page and pulling up
> an article on a Microsoft product and then *perhaps* being able to use that
> same number and pull up an article in some other knowledge base for some
> other company. I would consider it - at best - coincidental that they both
> had a knowledge base article by the same number. Actually - I probably
> wouldn't notice - because I would know where I was and what products I was
> looking for help on and would read the articles in question to comprehend
> whatever it was I needed to to figure out anything else. ;-)
Well, yes, but to be fair it /is/ likely to cause some confusion, especially if
you're Googling the duplicated KB number looking for third-party information
about one of them.
Certainly Adobe were under no obligation to avoid using the same labelling
scheme as Microsoft, but it is a bit unfortunate, particularly given that
they're both such large IT companies.
Harry.
Stefan
Stefan
Can somebody help me with this problem... I have installed the new Acrobat
9.0 and now i can not open any doc- files with it.. It says that the file
that i try to open is either damaged or that i do not have the right codec to
open it... What should i do??? Please help me someone.
Harry Johnston [MVP]
> Can somebody help me with this problem... I have installed the new Acrobat
> 9.0 and now i can not open any doc- files with it..
You'll need to look for an Adobe support group for assistance with this problem.
Harry.