Participating Frequently

Question

32.0.0.293 on firefox 70.0.1 under CentOS 7.7

Forum|Forum|6 years ago
November 22, 2019
9 replies
3621 views

CentOS7.7 system with firefox 70.0.1 installed. The flash-plugin recently update to 32.0.0.293 and now when I look at about:plugins there's nothing about flash listed. I reinstalled flash with 32.0.0.255 and 270, both of those older versions work as expected.

Anyone else seeing that and have a fix?

This topic has been closed for replies.

_maria_

Community Manager

Issue fixed in 32.0.0.330

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

32.0.0.324 (Beta) released. Looks good so far.

https://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashruntimes/flashplayer/

A

AntD00d

Inspiring

V32 b324 doesn't work in my Debian v8 (Jessie) with a couple web sites (http://homestarrunner.com and https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/about/😞

SeaMonkey v2.49.5 (User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5) gave ActionScript errors like "An ActionScript error has occurred: Error #2044: Unhandled securityError:. text=Error #2048: Security sandbox violation: https://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/swf/software/flash/about/flashAbout_info_small.swf cannot load data from https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/masterversion/masterversion.xml.

at flashAbout_info_small_fla::MainTimeline/loadXMLContent()
at flashAbout_info_small_fla::MainTimeline/frame1()".

Firefox v68.4.0esr didn't show any errors.

Both old Mozilla web browsers DID load the plugins unlike before.

S

simoNTDD

Participating Frequently

I did test SeaMonkey (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5) on EL-based systems, and it worked fine. I've gone back and tested both the specific URLs you gave and they both worked as well on those platforms, so your issue seems local to both Debian 8 (Jessie) and one specific browser. Can you confirm the system load libraries are working for the plugin? (running ldd(1) on the libflashplayer.so for 32.0.0.324).

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

Still no fix. Versions 32.0.0.[293|303|314] all released and none of them have fixed this problem. No useful information added to bug 4199058 in more than a month.

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

We're still waiting for a functional fix. Bug 4199058 is a month and a half old now with no progress.

S

Satinder S Bains

Participating Frequently

Please try with the latest beta build released today and share the feedback. Thanks.

S

simoNTDD

Participating Frequently

I can confirm that the beta release, 3.0.0.324, appears to work on the 64 and 32 bit versions of RHEL/CentOS/Scientific 6 and 7 versions. Inspection of the load library dependancies of all the compiled binaries does indead show that they're no longer encumbered by point-release dependancies of GLIBCXX_3.4.

Hopefully the release version of new RPMs can happen soon now, as I'm sure most of the effected audience for this problem is using the RPMs to install/manage their software installation.

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

Been a week with no updates on this. Is there any news to report?

_maria_

Community Manager

For security reasons, Flash Player for Linux has been compiled with updated library dependencies. Please refer to the bottom of https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/release-note/readme-flash-player-linux.html for a list of library dependencies. To continue using Flash Player on Linux requires updating to a distro that supports these libraries.

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

Updating to a distro that supports those libraries is not a viable solution for a lot of systems. You need to fix the flash plugin to support RHEL/CentOS 7 at least. I can kind of understand not supporting 6 at this point. RHEL 6 is going EOL 11/30/2020 and RHEL 7 going EOL 6/30/2024.

B

BiloxiGeekAuthor

Participating Frequently

32.0.0.303 is out and this problem is NOT fixed in it. CentOS 7.7, firefox 71.0 show no plugin installed once again. Reverting to the 270 version again.

A

Anonymous

Yes, that's a known problem. You can either wait for a fixed version or downgrade to the previous release. See in the bug tracker:

https://tracker.adobe.com/#/view/FP-4199058