Re: [Resolved] Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[»Q«]

In ,
rotter...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 7:35:38 AM UTC+1, NoOp wrote:
> > On 11/23/2013 11:19 AM, Geoff Welsh wrote:
> > 
> > > NoOp wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >> Found the problem&  filed a bug report:
> > 
> > >> 
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> Both Firefox and Seamonkey put incorrect plugin information in
> > >> the
> > 
> > >> pluginreg.dat file. Note that the version information in both
> > >> files
> > 
> > >> incorrectly places commas, instead of periods, between the
> > >> version number:
> > 
> > >> SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
> > 
> > >> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101
> > >> Firefox/25.0
> > 
> > >> SeaMonkey/2.22
> > 
> > >> Shockwave Flash
> > 
> > >>  File: libflashplayer.so
> > 
> > >>  Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> > 
> > >>  Version: 11,2,202,327
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > wow, good find!
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > guess someone was feeling European that day.
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > GW
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ah, nice catch. I didn't even think of that.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark
> > 
> > As Rob mentioned, perhaps an incorrect localization/locale setting?
> 
> I'd think it about ten times more likely that you have downloaded a
> malicious Flash plugin. The comma-replaces-dot thing is an age-old
> indicator of shenanigans. For the records, us "Europeans" use the
> exact same software version descriptors as anyone else.

The version string embedded in the so file from Adobe is
"11,2,202,327".  Why it is that way, I don't know.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Resolved] Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[rotterdxm]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 7:35:38 AM UTC+1, NoOp wrote:
> On 11/23/2013 11:19 AM, Geoff Welsh wrote:
> 
> > NoOp wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >> Found the problem&  filed a bug report:
> 
> >> 
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Both Firefox and Seamonkey put incorrect plugin information in the
> 
> >> pluginreg.dat file. Note that the version information in both files
> 
> >> incorrectly places commas, instead of periods, between the version number:
> 
> >> SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
> 
> >> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
> 
> >> SeaMonkey/2.22
> 
> >> Shockwave Flash
> 
> >>  File: libflashplayer.so
> 
> >>  Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> 
> >>  Version: 11,2,202,327
> 
> >>
> 
> > 
> 
> > wow, good find!
> 
> > 
> 
> > guess someone was feeling European that day.
> 
> > 
> 
> > GW
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, nice catch. I didn't even think of that.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark
> 
> As Rob mentioned, perhaps an incorrect localization/locale setting?

I'd think it about ten times more likely that you have downloaded a malicious 
Flash plugin. The comma-replaces-dot thing is an age-old indicator of 
shenanigans. For the records, us "Europeans" use the exact same software 
version descriptors as anyone else.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Resolved] Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[NoOp]

On 11/23/2013 11:19 AM, Geoff Welsh wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
...
>> Found the problem&  filed a bug report:
>> 
>>
>> Both Firefox and Seamonkey put incorrect plugin information in the
>> pluginreg.dat file. Note that the version information in both files
>> incorrectly places commas, instead of periods, between the version number:
>> SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
>> SeaMonkey/2.22
>> Shockwave Flash
>>  File: libflashplayer.so
>>  Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
>>  Version: 11,2,202,327
>>
> 
> wow, good find!
> 
> guess someone was feeling European that day.
> 
> GW
> 

Ah, nice catch. I didn't even think of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark
As Rob mentioned, perhaps an incorrect localization/locale setting?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[regz91]

»Q« wrote:

In ,
regz91  wrote:


What distro are you using ? You plugin folder is different from mine.
On my distro, all my plugin are in /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/


I'm not the one you asked, but distribution maintainers are free to
make the default locations for the so files whatever they want to;
symlinks are used to make sure all the browsers that use the plugins
can find them.


Thanks for clarifying.

--
GNOME 3.10.1
openSUSE 13.1 (Bottle) (x86_64) 64-bit
Kernel Linux 3.11.6-4-desktop
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[»Q«]

In ,
regz91  wrote:

> What distro are you using ? You plugin folder is different from mine.
> On my distro, all my plugin are in /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/

I'm not the one you asked, but distribution maintainers are free to
make the default locations for the so files whatever they want to;
symlinks are used to make sure all the browsers that use the plugins
can find them.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[regz91]

NoOp wrote:

Web site(s) are reporting that I do not have Flash installed. I do have
the most current linux version installed:

SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
SeaMonkey/2.22
Shockwave Flash
 File: libflashplayer.so
 Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
 Version: 11,2,202,327
 State: Enabled
 Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

Firefox 25.0.1:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
Shockwave Flash
 File: libflashplayer.so
 Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
 Version: 11,2,202,327
 State: Enabled
 Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

The issue occurs in both SeaMonkey 2.2.0 (and 2.2.1) and Firefox 25.1.
However it does not occur in Chromium Version 30.0.1599.114.

The interesting bit is that Chromium is using the exact same
libflashplayer.so as the Mozilla browsers:

Chromium:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
Ubuntu Chromium/30.0.1599.114 Chrome/30.0.1599.114 Safari/537.36
Adobe Flash Player - Version: 11.2 r202
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
Name:   Shockwave Flash
Version:11.2 r202
Location:   /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so

If I use  as a base for
testing, both SeaMonkey and Firefox (both are Mozilla versions & not
distro versions) I get:
Shockwave
FlashShockwave Flash 11.2 r202  vulnerable 'Update Now'

However if I use the same test with Chromium I get:
Shockwave Flash
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202   'Up to Date'

So now I test all three with

and get '11.2.202.327' for all three.

So what gives? Why does the Mozilla plugin check report that the
Chromium version (same libflashplayer.so is in use) is fine, yet reports
that the SeaMonkey versions are 'vulnerable' and out of date?
Anyone else getting the same (with linux)?

It gets even more interesting, and the Mozilla plugin check also reports
that the Flash plugin in Opera (linux) is fine as well:
Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16
Description: Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
Architecture: native
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so
  Note: Opera also uses the same libflashplayer.so, it just does it in a
roundabout way via symlinks:
$ ls -al /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 Nov 14 09:25
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so ->
/etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin
$ ls -al /etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 44 Nov 14 09:25
/etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin ->
/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so

Note that I've also tested using 'safe mode - addon disabled'

I came across this when attempting to access a web page that requires
Flash and uses bad browser sniffing:


using the 'Enrollment' link:


It's bad browser sniffing as I can spoof my browser to appear the same
as Chromium (as I'm doing now), and the enrollment page at pascc.org
works just fine. I'll take that issue up with the site support separately.


What distro are you using ? You plugin folder is different from mine.
On my distro, all my plugin are in /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/
--
GNOME 3.10.1
openSUSE 13.1 (Bottle) (x86_64) 64-bit
Kernel Linux 3.11.6-4-desktop
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Resolved] Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[goodwin]

On 11/22/2013 03:42 PM, NoOp wrote:


and the plugin check works correctly.


thats an oops for sure...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[Rob]

»Q«  wrote:
> In ,
> NoOp  wrote:
>> On 11/22/2013 03:50 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>  snipped
>> > 
>> > I get the same behavior, using the same Flash version.  I don't
>> > have an answer other than to note that the Mozilla's plugin
>> > checking page has always sucked.  This bug is
>> > , and the
>> > tracking bug for all the plugin checking problems is
>> > .
>> > 
>> 
>> Found the problem & it's not the plugin check site, it's incorrect
>> info in the pluginreg.dat file.
>> 
>> Version: 11,2,202,327
>> should be
>> Version: 11.2.202.327
>> 
>> I've filed a bug report:
>> 
>
> That's interesting.  The version string embedded in libflashplayer.so
> uses commas, so I'd say pluginreg.dat has the right info and the web
> site which doesn't recognize it has the bug.  Either way, this info
> should help them fix the bug, so thanks!

I never fully researched this but I always assumed that it is caused
by incorrect localization.  It is sometimes seen in Windows products
as well.

Probably it works OK in the USA and is a problem only in Europe.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[»Q«]

In ,
NoOp  wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 03:50 PM, »Q« wrote:
>  snipped
> > 
> > I get the same behavior, using the same Flash version.  I don't
> > have an answer other than to note that the Mozilla's plugin
> > checking page has always sucked.  This bug is
> > , and the
> > tracking bug for all the plugin checking problems is
> > .
> > 
> 
> Found the problem & it's not the plugin check site, it's incorrect
> info in the pluginreg.dat file.
> 
> Version: 11,2,202,327
> should be
> Version: 11.2.202.327
> 
> I've filed a bug report:
> 

That's interesting.  The version string embedded in libflashplayer.so
uses commas, so I'd say pluginreg.dat has the right info and the web
site which doesn't recognize it has the bug.  Either way, this info
should help them fix the bug, so thanks!



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[NoOp]

On 11/22/2013 03:50 PM, »Q« wrote:
 snipped
> 
> I get the same behavior, using the same Flash version.  I don't have an
> answer other than to note that the Mozilla's plugin checking page has
> always sucked.  This bug is
> , and the tracking
> bug for all the plugin checking problems is
> .
> 

Found the problem & it's not the plugin check site, it's incorrect info
in the pluginreg.dat file.

Version: 11,2,202,327
should be
Version: 11.2.202.327

I've filed a bug report:


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[»Q«]

In ,
NoOp  wrote:

> If I use  as a base for
> testing, both SeaMonkey and Firefox (both are Mozilla versions & not
> distro versions) I get:
> Shockwave
> FlashShockwave Flash 11.2 r202vulnerable 'Update Now'
> 
> However if I use the same test with Chromium I get:
> Shockwave Flash
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202 'Up to Date'
> 
> So now I test all three with
> 
> and get '11.2.202.327' for all three.
> 
> So what gives? Why does the Mozilla plugin check report that the
> Chromium version (same libflashplayer.so is in use) is fine, yet
> reports that the SeaMonkey versions are 'vulnerable' and out of date?
> Anyone else getting the same (with linux)?

I get the same behavior, using the same Flash version.  I don't have an
answer other than to note that the Mozilla's plugin checking page has
always sucked.  This bug is
, and the tracking
bug for all the plugin checking problems is
.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

[Resolved] Re: Flash (Linux) again...

[NoOp]

On 11/22/2013 03:06 PM, NoOp wrote:
> Web site(s) are reporting that I do not have Flash installed. I do have
> the most current linux version installed:
> 
> SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
> SeaMonkey/2.22
> Shockwave Flash
> File: libflashplayer.so
> Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> Version: 11,2,202,327
> State: Enabled
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
> 
> Firefox 25.0.1:
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
> Shockwave Flash
> File: libflashplayer.so
> Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> Version: 11,2,202,327
> State: Enabled
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
> 
> The issue occurs in both SeaMonkey 2.2.0 (and 2.2.1) and Firefox 25.1.
> However it does not occur in Chromium Version 30.0.1599.114.
> 
> The interesting bit is that Chromium is using the exact same
> libflashplayer.so as the Mozilla browsers:
> 
> Chromium:
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
> Ubuntu Chromium/30.0.1599.114 Chrome/30.0.1599.114 Safari/537.36
> Adobe Flash Player - Version: 11.2 r202
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
> Name: Shockwave Flash
> Version:  11.2 r202
> Location: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> 
> If I use  as a base for
> testing, both SeaMonkey and Firefox (both are Mozilla versions & not
> distro versions) I get:
> Shockwave
> FlashShockwave Flash 11.2 r202vulnerable 'Update Now'
> 
> However if I use the same test with Chromium I get:
> Shockwave Flash
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202 'Up to Date'
> 
> So now I test all three with
> 
> and get '11.2.202.327' for all three.
> 
> So what gives? Why does the Mozilla plugin check report that the
> Chromium version (same libflashplayer.so is in use) is fine, yet reports
> that the SeaMonkey versions are 'vulnerable' and out of date?
> Anyone else getting the same (with linux)?
> 
> It gets even more interesting, and the Mozilla plugin check also reports
> that the Flash plugin in Opera (linux) is fine as well:
> Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16
> Description: Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
> Architecture: native
> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so
>  Note: Opera also uses the same libflashplayer.so, it just does it in a
> roundabout way via symlinks:
> $ ls -al /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 37 Nov 14 09:25
> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so ->
> /etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin
> $ ls -al /etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 44 Nov 14 09:25
> /etc/alternatives/mozilla-flashplugin ->
> /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
> 
> Note that I've also tested using 'safe mode - addon disabled'

Found the problem & filed a bug report:


Both Firefox and Seamonkey put incorrect plugin information in the
pluginreg.dat file. Note that the version information in both files
incorrectly places commas, instead of periods, between the version number:
SeaMonkey 2.2.0/1:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
SeaMonkey/2.22
Shockwave Flash
File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11,2,202,327

Firefox 25.0.1:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0
Shockwave Flash
File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11,2,202,327

If I modify the pluginreg.dat file to correctly show the version number,
the mozilla plugin site recognizes that the Flash version is up-to-date:

[PLUGINS]
libflashplayer.so:$
/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so:$
11,2,202,327:$

Now I modify:

[PLUGINS]
libflashplayer.so:$
/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so:$
11.2.202.327:$

and show:
Shockwave Flash
File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11.2.202.327

and the plugin check works correctly.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey