[Solved] Adobe Flashplayer not updated in PM, Mint 13

[DanielR]

I have just installed the latest Adobe Flashplayer (11.2.202.440) through Synaptic Package Manager in Linux Mint 13. FF 35.0.1 recognises the update and the correct flash plugin is displayed in the plugin list. Pale Moon 25.2.1 however still lists the old version 11.2.202.438. How do I get Pale Moon to accept the updated version of flash player?

[SvenG]

Did you already try restarting Pale Moon?

[DanielR]

Yes, twice. But the listed flash player is still the old version, although I have removed that from my system (was mint-flashplayer-11) and installed the most recent Adobe flashplayer.

[SvenG]

Would have been too simple....

Did you compare the location of the plugin file used in about:plugins (in FF and PM), it should be something like this

File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11.2.202.440
State: Enabled
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

If they are identical there is, at least for me, no logical reason, why they should use different versions.

[DanielR]

Pale Moon about:plugins:

File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11,2,202,438
State: Enabled (STATE_VULNERABLE_UPDATE_AVAILABLE)
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

Firefox about:plugins:

File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11.2.202.440
State: Enabled
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

It's the same path and file for both. Only Pale Moon doesn't seem to recognise it properly. BTW, seen the comas in the version number in Pale Moons listing vs the proper dots displayed by FF? So, what's wrong here and how to fix it?

[SvenG]

I have no idea

But doesn't seem to be the commas, I am having them too in PM just with 440, the one in my previous post was taken from FF. I have updated the same way you did (on Trusty), don't think you are getting something different on Maya.

[Night Wing]

Did you compare the location of the plugin file used in about:plugins (in FF and PM), it should be something like this

File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11.2.202.440
State: Enabled
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

If they are identical there is, at least for me, no logical reason, why they should use different versions.

I use linux Mint 17. In the Synaptic Package Manager, if one searches "flashplugin", two version will be listed as installed. The 440 and 438. The 438 one is the flash plugin for "Steam" which is for Steam games.

[SvenG]

But those files shouldn't be installed in the exact same position with the exact same name and result in two different version numbers. That is something that shouldn't even be possible in Linux. But it is not difficult to check for multiple versions of libflashplayer:

Code: Select all

sudo updatedb
locate libflashplayer.so

[DanielR]

"locate libflashplayer.so" only yields one result/location. There is only one version of flashplayer installed on my system: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so

Since mint-flashplugin-11 wasn't updated in time to the current version (11.2.202.440), I uninstalled it and installed the adobe-flashplugin instead. Besides, the installer script of adobe-flashplugin automatically removes any installed versions of mint-flashplugin prior to installing the adobe-flashplugin. I have also checked in Synaptic, the only installed Version is adobe-flashplugin 11.2.202.440. That is also confirmed by Firefox, which is still installed and running on the same system.

So, Firefox correctly reports the installed flashplugin as 11.2.202.440 while Pale Moon, running parallel on the same system, still reports version 11.2.202.438 and urges to update flashplugin. So, what's wrong with Pale Moon here?

[Moonchild]

Have you tried giving your entire system a reboot?
Also, you can try to flush any incorrectly cached data by starting Pale Moon (once) with "palemoon -purgecaches"

[DanielR]

Yes, tried a reboot but PM still lists the wrong flashplugin. Just tried the "palemoon -purgecaches" and PM still lists the wrong flashplugin.

[Night Wing]

I need to clarify my earlier comment.

In the linux Mint OS, using the Synaptic Package Manager, both the 438 and 440 plugins are listed as installed. But, in linux Pale Moon, only the 440 plugin is listed as installed in the browser. There is no 438 plugin listed or even installed for my linux Pale Moon.

[rea987]

I have exactly the same issue. The flashplugin version that I have is 11,2,202,440 in Linux Mint 13 (32 bit). However, I use neither Canonical's, nor Mint's flashplugin. I download and use Adobe's tar.gz version of flashplugin in the /opt folder of Pale Moon; cause I do not want the flashplugin of Pale Moon to be used by other applications such as Chromium and Spotify. System reboot and starting Pale Moon with palemoon -purgecaches did not help.

Here are my flashplugin details:

Code: Select all

about:plugins

Shockwave Flash

    File: libflashplayer.so
    Path: /opt/palemoon/browser/plugins/libflashplayer.so
    Version: 11,2,202,440
    State: Enabled (STATE_VULNERABLE_UPDATE_AVAILABLE)
    Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

Thank you.

Edit: As far as I understand, that is a profile issue. I was curious, I created a new profile by starting the browser via palemoon -P and suprise suprise; no flashplugin problem whatsoever... Then I returned to my old profile, disabled all the addons, cleared almost all browsing history (form & search history, cookies, cache, active logins, offline website data, site preferences) aand nope; the flash warning/block persists. I guess I can overcome the issue by simply removing .adobe, .cache/moonchild productions, .macromedia, .moonchild productions, .mozilla folder in my home dir after doing a BACKUP... It is okay, big portion of the guild is owned by Adobe but that issue should be solved without that amount of efford...

[SvenG]

No, that might be a related issue but it's not the same, you have .440 installed and it is identified as such (just with comma where periods should be). The resulting warning is nonsense. The OP has .440 installed but PM identifies it as .438. Your problem is in this thread
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=10

[CraigPD]

Same experience as DanielR but with a twist that I can't begin to puzzle out.

Before updating Mint 17 to 17.1 yesterday I updated flash-plugin 11.2.202.384 to *.440 using Synaptic Package Manager because of flash vulnerability warnings and blockages starting several days ago. The plugin update succeeded, rebooted and everything worked as expected in PM 25.2.0 (x64). Afterwards I upgraded to Mint 17.1 and now I'm back to the same warnings / blockages.

I've waited 12 hours for a blocklist update with no success so far. Short of reinstalling flash-plugin 11.2.202.440 I've toggled extensions.blocklist.enabled as false to circumvent the problem. In the meantime, where can I download a corrected blocklist or the one dated 01/15/2015 mentioned in this post? http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php ... =10#p46816

For bonus points, why would the same Pale Moon blocklist affect distro versions differently?

[rea987]

No, that might be a related issue but it's not the same, you have .440 installed and it is identified as such (just with comma where periods should be). The resulting warning is nonsense. The OP has .440 installed but PM identifies it as .438. Your problem is in this thread
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=10

Yeah as it turned out it is not the same but a related issue. I manually deleted the blocklist.xml from ~/.moonchild productions/pale moon/rAnDoMlEtTeRs.default folder. And now there is no warning at all. Thanks.

[CraigPD]

Yeah as it turned out it is not the same but a related issue. I manually deleted the blocklist.xml from ~/.moonchild productions/pale moon/rAnDoMlEtTeRs.default folder. And now there is no warning at all. Thanks.

Thanks for the tip. Worksforme. Now lets see if MC can collect those bonus points

[Moonchild]

The same blocklist can affect distros differently depending on which binary flashplugin is served to/by the distro and in which way duplicate version numbers in an .so are served to the calling program (because that seems to be the problem here: 2 version numbers, one with commas and one with periods -- the comma version would confuse the version check since it makes no sense).

Blocklist has been updated with a conservative plugins section now, to work around the issue, and I'll have a version fix routine in the next version of Pale Moon, meaning it should be fully functional even with odd version strings in Flash.

[CraigPD]

The same blocklist can affect distros differently depending on which binary flashplugin is served to/by the distro and in which way duplicate version numbers in an .so are served to the calling program

In this case the plugin wasn't changed (commas, periods, whatever) from 17 to 17.1 so I assume it was served differently after distro updating. Strange indeed. Until the fix would it be preferable to toggle extensions.blocklist.enabled to false or delete blocklist.xml or no difference?

[DanielR]

I have just checked the start script for Pale Moon (/usr/bin/palemoon).

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh
PM_PLUGIN_PATH="/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins-wrapped:/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins"

if [ -z "$MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH" ]; then
	export MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH="$PM_PLUGIN_PATH"
else
	export MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH="$MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH:$PM_PLUGIN_PATH"
fi

exec /opt/palemoon/palemoon "$@"

What puzzles me is the "lib64" directory in the plugin path. I'm running Linux Mint 13 32bit. There is no such directory, just "lib" and "lib32". Any chance that this might be the issue why Pale Moon gets the wrong info for the flashplugin?