Adobe Flash 11.4.402.278 package issues/questions

I had some end user complaints that the New Updates notification on the Windows 7 (x64) machines would reoccur no matter how many times they manually tried t install the approved+deployed updates. It turns out that the full EXE build for Flash 11.4.402.178 (both ActiveX and Plugin) were installing themselves over and over again.

I began digging through the applicability rule of the ActiveX EXE full install package.

Rule 1: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX -> Value Version < 11.4.402.278

Rule 2: NOT File Exists C;\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash\Flash32_11_4_402_278.ocx

Rule 3: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX -> Value Version < 11.4.402.278

Rule 4: NOT File Exists C:\Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash\flash64_11_4_402_278.ocx

Rule 5: Key exists HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX

If a machine had no prior Flash Player installed, Rules 1,3,5 would not apply because they don't exist. By virtue them not having these files/values, do the rules still pass since, technically, it didn't a Value with a version < 11.4.402.278.

Whether I run the package on machines with or without Flash Player, the result is the same:

Most machines already have Flash Player 11.4.402.265. However, a review of WU on some of these machines shows the .268 package having been successfully installed.

Where am I going wrong? I republished the packages after doing a triple-test of the installation file that goes with each package. The latest revision of this package was this morning (proceeding last night's repository sync).

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

patch

3rd_party_updates

3rd_party_patch_management

activex

wsus

eminentware

patch_management

deployment

plugin

patch_manager

computer

patch_updates

solarwinds_patch_manager

adobe

adobe_flash_player

3pup

third_party_patches

third_party_updates

microsoft

manager

Windows

Accepted answers

grandgroove

Heya . I meant to reply to this a few days ago. With the availability of a newer Flash Player set of builds, they have deployed successfully. It looks like it was just an anomaly of some kind with the older packages. All is now well, though

Thanks for your insight and assistance with this.

All comments

LGarvin

Greetings Jay!

I only see four rules in the v11.4 ActiveX EXE Full Installer package Applicability Ruleset (and two rules in the Installed Ruleset) relevant to x64 systems.

1. Registry Version in String testing HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX for a value < 11.4.402.278

This rule will return TRUE in two possible conditions:

There is a value present and it is less than 11.4.402.278 -or- The value is not present at all, in which case it is, de facto, less than the specified value

(i.e. the product is not installed).

2. NOT File Exists %WINDOWS%\SysWos64\Macromed\Flash\Flash32_11_4_402_278.ocx

This rule will return TRUE if the v11.4.402.278

32-bit ActiveX control is not present.

3. Registry Version in String testing HKLM\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX for a value < 11.4.402.278

Like Rule #1 this rule will return TRUE if the stored value is less than the specified value -or- if the registry value is not present.

(It should be noted that a similar behavior occurs with the File Version rule - if the file is absent, it is assumed to be "less than" whatever version is of interest.)

4. NOT File Exists %WINDOWS%\System32\Macromed\Flash\Flash64_11_4_402_278.ocx

This rule will return TRUE if the v11.4.402.278 64-bit ActiveX control is not present

We can safely assume that all four of these rules are being properly evaluated *AND* the installation is not occuring

. (If the installation were successful, then one or more of these rules would return false, and even if the Installed Rules were defective, the Applicability Rules would then return NotApplicable, and the installation would not happen.) The question, however, is whether the installation is [1] failing, [2] repeatedly reoccuring, or [3] never happening at all.

The Installed Ruleset has two rules -- exactly the opposite of the rules in the Applicability Ruleset (and conforming to packaging best practices).

1. Registry Version in String testing HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX for a value = 11.4.402.278

2. File Exists %WINDOWS%\SysWos64\Macromed\Flash\Flash32_11_4_402_278.ocx

Note that we do only test for the installation of the 32-bit control, and we do assume the 64-bit control was also successfully installed.

When a package is continually installed over and over, there's essentially one of two possible causes:

The Installed Ruleset is failing to properly identify the update as installed.
The update is not actually installed - typically as a result of a failed installation.

However, in this instance, the message dialog shows us that it is not the case that the update is failing to install, or even that it is being installed multiple times -- although it is true that a Patch Manager task is being launched to attempt to install the update. In this scenario, the attempt to install is being refused by the Windows Update Agent because the update is either "Not Applicable" or (much more often the case) "Not Available" (from the client's assigned WSUS server).

We actually see the latter occur quite often. Typically it is a result of having published an update to an upstream server, approved it on the upstream server, and then attempting to deploy the update to a client of a downstream server. In this scenario, the update is not yet available on the downstream server because it will not actually be transferred until the next server synchronization event initiated by the downstream server.
In some cases, of course, it can also be that the update truly is Not Applicable. This can happen, of course, if the Flash Player is, in fact, already installed on the target system and Patch Manager is asking the WUAgent to install it again. In this case, the Applicability Rules really do return NotApplicable, and the message is absolutely accurate.
Finally, this can also occur on a client of the upstream server if the update has not successfully "downloaded" to the WSUS server.

So the relevant questions would be:

Is the target client assigned to an upstream server or a downstream server?
1. If a downstream server, is the Flash v11.4 ActiveX EXE Full Installer package physically present (and approved, and marked as "downloaded") on the downstream WSUS server?
2. If an upstream server, is the Flash v11.4 ActiveX EXE Full Installer package physically present (and approved, and marked as "downloaded") on the upstream WSUS server?
Does a physical inspection of all of the relevant registry values and files show no trace of any installation of Flash on the machine.

grandgroove

We only have two servers: One is our WSUS primary (vWSUS) and our Patch Management server (vWSUS2).

I took a sampling of x64 and x86 machines and confirmed they met all Prerequisite, Applicability, and Installed Rules to receive the package. However, they always come back as non-applicable. Since I only have the two servers and have removed/republished each package, I am at a loss. I will put in a support ticket. I think I am missing something.

grandgroove

Thanks for your insight and assistance with this.