Simon,

Sorry, I missed your email yesterday.... 

However, the rule was actually changed earlier yesterday when we noticed
the problem with some machines.  What we check for in the new version is
if 6.0.79 version of flash is present and is registered.... Only then,
does the rule fail. 

The problem is that if a newer version is present, the old version might
still be registered. 

Btw, you still need another rule to make sure that the newer v7 or v8
versions that are present are updated to the latest versions.... We do
not cover that in the pr_XP or pr_98/ME rules....

-Rajesh. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Bell
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HELP WITH FAILED CHECK

Unless I don't understand how the rule functions, it seems to me that
there's a logic error in the pr_ rule.

The rule doesn't take into account that if a user has upgraded, the the
flash.ocx file is still in the path specified, and that the registry key
won't be there. The pr check needs one more "or" statement looking for
the new version.

I posted more info yesterday under "new flash checks".

Simon

>>> On 5/19/2006 at 1:51 PM, in message
<[log in to unmask]>,
"Rajesh
Nair (rajnair)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Chuck,
>  
> Can you send the full report for this requirement (showing passed, 
> failed and not executed checks)?
> Thanks,
> Rajesh.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of THETFORD, CHARLES
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: HELP WITH FAILED CHECK
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 	*	Failed Checks:
> 		pc_Flash_6_0_79, File Check
> [$SYSTEM_32\Macromed\Flash\Flash.ocx same as 6.0.79]
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Does anyone know what to do about this failed CCA check?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Chuck Thetford
> 
> Texas Woman's University
> 
>