Thanks again for following-up! -- Espi
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote: > Following up on the follow up. > > This has finally been fixed as of SEP 14 MP1 (MP2 is current.) > > From https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.INFO4193.html > > --- > Chrome Adobe Flash component fails to update with SMC started*FIX ID:* > 4050141 > > *Symptom:* Chrome fails to update the Adobe Flash component with the > Symantec Management Client (SMC) enabled. > > *Solution:* Corrected an issue where Symantec Endpoint Protection blocked > the Chrome Flash component update. > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
