Last Comment Bug 662217 - Update the Windows RDF for the Flash Player 10.3.181.22 Security Update
: Update the Windows RDF for the Flash Player 10.3.181.22 Security Update
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
:
Product: Firefox
Classification: Client Software
Component: Security (show other bugs)
: unspecified
: x86 Windows XP
: -- critical (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it
:
Mentors:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-06-05 20:44 PDT by John Pfeiffer
Modified: 2011-06-06 13:40 PDT (History)
8 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments
Updated pfs.php for new Flash Player installer (1.08 KB, patch)
2011-06-06 05:49 PDT, Kev Needham [:kev]
morgamic: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Description John Pfeiffer 2011-06-05 20:44:06 PDT
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110420 Firefox/3.6.9
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110420 Firefox/3.6.9

Please update the Windows PFS RDF configuration for the Flash Player 10.3.181.22 Security update which when live this afternoon. Here are the RDF changes (note that the version has not changed):

<pfs:version>10.3.181</pfs:version>
<pfs:InstallerHash>sha256:fc663c9610595af022cf51b1c2e8565cc46d858a6f336965dd9e26f33c0d65ea</pfs:InstallerHash>


Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Carsten Book [:Tomcat] - PTO-back Sept 4th 2011-06-06 02:47:05 PDT
adobe annoucement is here btw http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb11-13.html
Comment 2 Kev Needham [:kev] 2011-06-06 05:49:32 PDT
Created attachment 537537 [details] [diff] [review]
Updated pfs.php for new Flash Player installer

Updated patch for Adobe Flash security update that was released last night.

Morgamic, could you review and Wil could you push when the review is complete?

Many thanks!
Comment 3 Michael Morgan [:morgamic] 2011-06-06 09:12:54 PDT
Comment on attachment 537537 [details] [diff] [review]
Updated pfs.php for new Flash Player installer

No version change?
Comment 4 Wil Clouser [:clouserw] 2011-06-06 09:23:12 PDT
r89988.  Will go out tomorrow
Comment 5 Kev Needham [:kev] 2011-06-06 09:40:36 PDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Comment on attachment 537537 [details] [diff] [review] [review]
> Updated pfs.php for new Flash Player installer
> 
> No version change?

Nope.
Comment 6 Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2011-06-06 11:20:39 PDT
What's the significance of the version not changing? The Adobe download site (and about:plugins) report a full version of "10.3.181.22" (was .16). Should the full version be used here (and what makes use of this version number)?
Comment 7 Wil Clouser [:clouserw] 2011-06-06 11:21:05 PDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> r89988.  Will go out tomorrow

This is live now
Comment 8 Kev Needham [:kev] 2011-06-06 11:44:25 PDT
The significance for this bug is minimal. PFS is only consulted on an initial install, and is not used for updates. We could update it, but the important bits are the hash matching the .exe that is being downloaded (if they don't match, the user is pushed to the adobe site for a manual install).

 Version numbers have greater significance on plugin checks, as some browsers/platforms only report the first three digits.

(In reply to comment #6)
> What's the significance of the version not changing? The Adobe download site
> (and about:plugins) report a full version of "10.3.181.22" (was .16). Should
> the full version be used here (and what makes use of this version number)?
Comment 9 Kev Needham [:kev] 2011-06-06 11:45:34 PDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > r89988.  Will go out tomorrow
> 
> This is live now

Thanks Wil! much appreciated!

Dolske: One last thing, we could add the last version number to future updates, but it's descriptive metadata only for PFS.
Comment 10 John Pfeiffer 2011-06-06 13:01:26 PDT
Thanks for the quick turnaround folks!
Comment 11 Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2011-06-06 13:40:36 PDT
(In reply to comment #9)

> Dolske: One last thing, we could add the last version number to future
> updates, but it's descriptive metadata only for PFS.

Might be a good idea for clearity / record keeping. Though it sounds like it isn't actually used for anything.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.