User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/220.127.116.11 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/22.214.171.124 http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/extensions/googlepreview/googlepreview-2.1.3=fx.xpi because:Invalid file Hash(possible download corruption)-261 Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Go To Tools 2.Go TO Add-ons 3.Click "Find Updates" for the Extensions Tab 4.For all the Updates its showing 18KB of 4194.30MB 5.Also it is giving a message "Firefox could not Install the file at http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/extensions/googlepreview/googlepreview-2.1.3=fx.xpi because:Invalid file Hash(possible download corruption)-261 Actual Results: Results in the Steps to Reproduce are displayed as--- "Firefox could not Install the file at http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/extensions/googlepreview/googlepreview-2.1.3=fx.xpi because:Invalid file Hash(possible download corruption)-261 Expected Results: Downloading of Updates are successful should be displayed.
Does it do this when installing other extensions?
The screenshots in the attachments show three extension installations. The first succeeds (Aluminium Alloy), the following two ("Google Preview" and "Opaque + ClearTabs") fail with error messages as above, both coming from releases.mozilla.org Krish, please use either descriptions or a single screenshot attached directly to the bug to describe things or it makes things exceptionally difficult on those trying to look at these reports.
Mike, any reason you know of why we would be getting invalid file hashes on some extensions on AMO? krish, are you using a firewall or antivirus software that might intercept the download? If so, could you try disabling it to check if it may be modifying the file size? I ask because there have been products that have done this in the past.
It looks like the file URI for google preview has =fx in it, which is invalid and is a 404. It could be possible it's hashing the 404 .html and comparing it to the hash. Opaue and Cleartabs, I'm not sure about. We have had some issues with incorrect hashes in the past, but usually for older extensions. We can definitely check their hashes to see if they are correct. Will take a look at the most recent version's files/hashes.
Hi Guys, thanks for the concerns to ALL of you,in considering the request(Bug put by me) sent by me. To the question asked by Robert Strong on 2007-02-08 16:25:07 PST (Comment #4) about the Firewall or the anti virus software usage,Yes, We do use them and the software is Symantec(Anti virus and Firewall).But I have disabled them and tried but no change was observed as Robert said.It needs to be thought too, when we are connected in the Network where disabling the Anti virus or Firewall may not be possible at an individual level to independent systems or when we are in Corporate Accounts.And there are no problems found when other extensions are loaded or updated.But I guess the two(Google Preview and Opaque+Tabs) are stopping other new extensions from being installed when check for updates are clicked in Add-ons in the Tools Tabs.And as Dave Townsend said, I will try to be more precise from next time since its my first time i am posting any issues or comments online.And I love Firefox more(than Internet Explorer), and i want it to see it to be more popularized.Only problem i found is, it takes time to load and as the tab's count increase, the robust size is increased and data is being pulled from internet slowly, though we are using a good speed internet connection.This needs to be addressed.Anyway currently am using Firefox version 126.96.36.199 version, which is i guess is a latest version(as Michael Morgan said about the Old versions used and am currently using the latest version).THANK YOU ONE AND ALL.
krish, is this still reproducible with Firefox 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206 (when released), or the latest trunk build? Thanks.
Not sure if my experience is related to this issue or not... (using FF 220.127.116.11 and FF 3.0B2) I've noticed that when I am doing extension development and am testing updating, if I do not clear my private data, I will often download (or more accurately, be returned) the last version of my extension (the one previously downloaded). Although the update dialog will show the version number of the updated release, when I attempt to install it, I get the cached extension. Of course, this means the hashes do not match, and the update does not get installed. One note - the name of my extension does not include the version number, or otherwise change between releases; its always named something like myext.xpi. (And yes, I know this would probably solve this problem). My current workaround is to append the version number as a query string to the updateUrl, such as http://mysite/myext.xpi?version=1234. Seems to work, but also seems like there is something wrong here.
Pardon my mistake - I meant to say I append ?version=1234 to the updateLink in the update.rdf, not to the updateUrl in the install.rdf.
Comment 5 is correct, xpinstall will attempt to hash and install 404 pages. I can't see any information to track down where the bad links came from but this report is quite old so I'm just going to close it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.