WOW, just... wow. Thanks for the follow-up on this! -- Espi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote: > For anyone else that may be seeing the Flash update issues in Chrome. If > you're using SEP, this may be your issue. > > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=651945 > > --------- > > Symantec has confirmed that this is a known issue. Below is their response to > our case. > > After reviewing this case and the available data (primarily the provided WPP > logs) I have found that this is a known-issue with the SEP 12.1 and SEP 14 > products. SEP is attempting to obtain a hash of the Adobe Flash Player file > 'pepflashplayer.dll'; however, during the hash operation, Chrome is > attempting to move the file from a temporary folder (where SEP is performing > the hash) to Chrome's plugin folder; since SEP has a lock on the file, > Chrome's move operation fails and the plugin update process aborts. > > Symantec has identified a fix for this issue and is planning on including a > resolution in the next release of SEP 12.1 and SEP 14, both due out early > next year. > > It is possible to work around this issue by disabling deferred scanning for > AutoProtect; however, this is not generally recommended in production unless > absolutely needed, as it disables scan throttling based on I/O activity. > > For more information on disabling deferred scanning, please see the following > KB document: > > How to disable deferred scanning in Auto-Protect for Symantec Endpoint > Protection > <https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.TECH224108.html>https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.TECH224108.html > > It is also possible to work around the issue by temporarily disabling SEP; > however, this is a potential security issue, as you will be temporarily > disabling the product from being able to scan files. > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Right, for which if I understand the process correctly, you are dependant >> on Google Updater to update various components after the fact - that are >> not a part of the core application update. So, you may have download >> restrictions in place that are preventing the update of the flash >> component. This methodology appears to be acknowledged in the top response: >> >> Chrome is rolling out some optimizations to the Chrome install process, >>> whereby the Flash Player component will automatically be installed a few >>> minutes after the initial Chrome installation. >> >> >> -- >> Espi >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, this pretty much explains what I'm seeing. >>> https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2221587. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I cant speak for Ninite-driven upgrades, but have you tested Google >>>> Updater driven upgrades? Perhaps the issue is with Ninite, and not Google >>>> Chrome itself. Or perhaps you need to review your methodologies inline >>>> with your download restrictions. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Espi >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Getting back to this. Sorry for the delay... >>>>> >>>>> Google is apparently de-emphasizing Flash's use with an eventual plan >>>>> to drop it completely. (Which I'm all for.) >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that it's still alive and well, but updating to Chrome >>>>> 54.X no longer automatically updates Pepper Flash along with core Chrome. >>>>> At least on Windows, it looks like they're moving Flash to the *local >>>>> user profile* and relying on the Chrome Component Updater to download >>>>> it as necessary. (Check your appdata\local\google\chrome\user >>>>> data\pepperflash folder.) >>>>> >>>>> We manage Chrome updates at work and this is breaking our current >>>>> system. Very frustrating. May be moving back to Firefox so at least we >>>>> can keep this stuff up to date. Moving Flash to the local profile seems >>>>> like a genuinely bad idea. >>>>> >>>>> Is no one else seeing issues with this at work? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hasn't Chrome started the phase-out of Flash? However, I'm on 54 and >>>>>> I can see Adobe's Flash test page fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not aware of any Flash update options relating to current >>>>>> versions of Chrome. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Espi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone know what is really going on with Flash and Chrome 54? >>>>>>> It doesn't appear to be bundled with Chrome anymore. I use Ninite to >>>>>>> update Chrome at $work, but now that doesn't work. (Chrome updates, but >>>>>>> Flash does not.) We restrict downloads of .exes and .dlls, so if >>>>>>> Chrome is >>>>>>> trying to autoupdate Flash via direct download, that won't work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't had time to do a deep dive into this. Was hoping someone >>>>>>> else had seen the behavior and knew for sure what has changed with >>>>>>> Chrome >>>>>>> 54 and what the Flash update options are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> RS >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
