X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

منتدى الدعم

This thread was closed and archived. Please ask a new question if you need help.

Could you pls notify us if/when Adobe Flash is acceptable again?

Posted

I want to know when I can enable the Adobe Flash plugin again. In other words, I don't want to have to repeatedly check back to find out if things have changed. Could you notify Firefox users?

I want to know when I can enable the Adobe Flash plugin again. In other words, I don't want to have to repeatedly check back to find out if things have changed. Could you notify Firefox users?

Chosen solution

Adobe released Flash Player updates for Windows/Mac OS last Tuesday and for Linux late Wednesday.

Read this answer in context 1

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • Plugin that detects installed Citrix Online products (visit www.citrixonline.com).
  • Provides information about the default web browser
  • Dragon Dictate-Web Applications
  • The Flip4Mac WMV Plugin allows you to view Windows Media content using QuickTime.
  • Garmin Communicator Plug-in Version 4.2.0.0
  • The Google Earth Plugin allows you to view 3D imagery and terrain in your web browser.
  • Version 5.41.0.0
  • Displays Java applet content, or a placeholder if Java is not installed.
  • Logitech Device Detection
  • Simplifies the uploading of photo files.
  • The QuickTime Plugin allows you to view a wide variety of multimedia content in web pages. For more information, visit the QuickTime Web site.
  • RealPlayer Plugin
  • Game Launch Browser Plug-in for Tenderfoot Games
  • WebEx64 General Plugin Container Version 205
  • iPhoto6

Application

  • Firefox 39.0
  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:39.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/39.0
  • Support URL: https://support.mozilla.org/1/firefox/39.0/Darwin/en-US/

Extensions

Javascript

  • incrementalGCEnabled: True

Graphics

  • adapterDescription:
  • adapterDeviceID: 0x944a
  • adapterDrivers:
  • adapterRAM:
  • adapterVendorID: 0x1002
  • driverDate:
  • driverVersion:
  • info: {u'AzureCanvasBackend': u'quartz', u'AzureFallbackCanvasBackend': u'none', u'AzureContentBackend': u'quartz', u'AzureSkiaAccelerated': 0}
  • numAcceleratedWindows: 1
  • numTotalWindows: 1
  • webglRenderer: ATI Technologies Inc. -- ATI Radeon HD 4850 OpenGL Engine
  • windowLayerManagerRemote: True
  • windowLayerManagerType: OpenGL

Modified Preferences

Misc

  • User JS: No
  • Accessibility: No
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

Good idea and those with settings set to receive update news should be able to expect such news. I shall suggest this to the Mozillian developers.

Is all I can do and I am sure they will take it on board, so thank you for the suggestion. Judging by the number of regular incoming posts in here enquiring why Firefox is blocking the Flash plug in, it would be good too if Mozilla could send out a circular email to registered users advising of its problems. I will suggest both.

Good idea and those with settings set to receive update news should be able to expect such news. I shall suggest this to the Mozillian developers. Is all I can do and I am sure they will take it on board, so thank you for the suggestion. Judging by the number of regular incoming posts in here enquiring why Firefox is blocking the Flash plug in, it would be good too if Mozilla could send out a circular email to registered users advising of its problems. I will suggest both.
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Helpful Reply

Adobe released an update last week to resolve the critical issues it admitted were in the 18.0.0.203 version. You can get version 18.0.0.209 on this page:

https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html

In the first table, look for the row for Mac. To ensure that the installer removes older versions, please close any tabs using Flash, or you can quit out of Firefox during the update.

Does that work?


Also, Flash was not completely and totally blocked... If you are not accustomed to using the "Ask to Activate" feature for a plugin, here's how it should work:

When you visit a site that wants to use Flash, you should see a notification icon in the address bar and usually (but not always) one of the following: a link in a black rectangle in the page or an infobar sliding down between the toolbar area and the page.

The plugin notification icon normally is dark gray and looks like a small Lego block. When the plugin the site wants to use has a serious security vulnerability, the icon turns red.

If you see a good reason to use Flash, and the site looks trustworthy, you can go ahead and click the Lego-like icon in the address bar to allow Flash. You can trust the site for the time being or permanently.

But some pages use Flash only for tracking or playing ads, so if you don't see an immediate need for Flash, feel free to ignore the notification! It will just sit there in case you want it later.

Adobe released an update last week to resolve the critical issues it admitted were in the 18.0.0.203 version. You can get version 18.0.0.209 on this page: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html In the first table, look for the row for Mac. To ensure that the installer removes older versions, please close any tabs using Flash, or you can quit out of Firefox during the update. Does that work? ---- Also, Flash was not completely and totally blocked... If you are not accustomed to using the "Ask to Activate" feature for a plugin, here's how it should work: When you visit a site that wants to use Flash, you should see a notification icon in the address bar and usually (but not always) one of the following: a link in a black rectangle in the page or an infobar sliding down between the toolbar area and the page. The plugin notification icon normally is dark gray and looks like a small Lego block. When the plugin the site wants to use has a serious security vulnerability, the icon turns red. If you see a good reason to use Flash, and the site looks trustworthy, you can go ahead and click the Lego-like icon in the address bar to allow Flash. You can trust the site for the time being or permanently. But some pages use Flash only for tracking or playing ads, so if you don't see an immediate need for Flash, feel free to ignore the notification! It will just sit there in case you want it later.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

Chosen Solution

Adobe released Flash Player updates for Windows/Mac OS last Tuesday and for Linux late Wednesday.

Adobe released Flash Player updates for Windows/Mac OS last Tuesday and for Linux late Wednesday.
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

jscher2000 said

Also, Flash was not completely and totally blocked... If you are not accustomed to using the "Ask to Activate" feature for a plugin, here's how it should work: The plugin notification icon normally is dark gray and looks like a small Lego block. When the plugin the site wants to use has a serious security vulnerability, the icon turns red. If you see a good reason to use Flash, and the site looks trustworthy, you can go ahead and click the Lego-like icon in the address bar to allow Flash. You can trust the site for the time being or permanently.

That is true, but the problem still nevertheless persists and I have experienced it just yesterday and again today, despite the "safe" site indicative colour of the Adobe icon, (often in the middle of the screen, begging to be clicked on), as Firefox may still block - and randomly still does - block the installation.

We do need to be sure this is properly resolved, including obtain confirmation from the user of what has worked. The fact that others are still reporting this problem and that I too have found recurrences of this, as recently as yesterday and today, perhaps we should not be too hasty in archiving this problem. Perhaps the Mozillian developers need to be made aware and this post should be escalated? What do you think?

''jscher2000 [[#answer-756928|said]]'' <blockquote> Also, Flash was not completely and totally blocked... If you are not accustomed to using the "Ask to Activate" feature for a plugin, here's how it should work: The plugin notification icon normally is dark gray and looks like a small Lego block. When the plugin the site wants to use has a serious security vulnerability, the icon turns red. If you see a good reason to use Flash, and the site looks trustworthy, you can go ahead and click the Lego-like icon in the address bar to allow Flash. You can trust the site for the time being or permanently. </blockquote> That is true, but the problem''' ''still''''' nevertheless persists and I have experienced it just yesterday and again today, despite the "safe" site indicative colour of the Adobe icon, ''(often in the middle of the screen, begging to be clicked on)'', as Firefox may '''''still block''''' - and randomly still does - block the installation. We do need to be sure this is properly resolved, including obtain confirmation from the user of what has worked. The fact that others are still reporting this problem and that I too have found recurrences of this, as recently as yesterday and today, perhaps we should not be too hasty in archiving this problem. Perhaps the Mozillian developers need to be made aware and this post should be escalated? What do you think?
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Hi Dingeroo, could you confirm that Firefox is not detecting any older Flash versions on your system? You can type or paste about:plugins in the address bar and on that page use Find (Ctrl+f) to look for npswf to see whether you might have multiple Flash DLLs.

Hi Dingeroo, could you confirm that Firefox is not detecting any older Flash versions on your system? You can type or paste '''about:plugins''' in the address bar and on that page use Find (Ctrl+f) to look for '''npswf''' to see whether you might have multiple Flash DLLs.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

Mozilla does not have the current versions that are listed at https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html on blocklist https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/

The posts you have seen about Flash still being soft blocked (click to play) were due to users thinking they had the latest when the really had the previous or a older version. Or some users on occasions still had say 18.0.0.203 installed along with 18.0.0.209.

Mozilla does not have the current versions that are listed at https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html on blocklist https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/ The posts you have seen about Flash still being soft blocked (click to play) were due to users thinking they had the latest when the really had the previous or a older version. Or some users on occasions still had say 18.0.0.203 installed along with 18.0.0.209.
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

Not so. I am growing tedious of repeating myself. I know what I saw. I know what I have experienced and I have driver updaters and auto updaters which automatically update everything I require for my system when it is released.

I repeat, just yesterday the Jigsaw puzzle icon of Flash, centred in a grey page, confronted me and would not allow me to open Flash Player to view a web site. Let's get on with fixing this instead of asking pointless questions and making assumptions.

If you click on the attached image, as rendered by the online Version checker, which reads my system. and which I cannot mistake, you will see that clearly I do have Version18.0.0.209 of Flash Player installed on this PC.

Not so. I am growing tedious of repeating myself. I know what I saw. I know what I have experienced and I have driver updaters and auto updaters which automatically update everything I require for my system when it is released. I repeat, just yesterday the Jigsaw puzzle icon of Flash, centred in a grey page, confronted me and would not allow me to open Flash Player to view a web site. Let's get on with fixing this instead of asking pointless questions and making assumptions. If you click on the attached image, as rendered by the online Version checker, which reads my system. and which I cannot mistake, you will see that clearly I do have Version18.0.0.209 of Flash Player installed on this PC.

Modified by Dingeroo

jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Hi Dingeroo, can you find the problem site in your history? It's difficult to fix bugs that can't be replicated.

Hi Dingeroo, can you find the problem site in your history? It's difficult to fix bugs that can't be replicated.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

Give a link to the page where you saw this then if you indeed only have the plugin based Flash player 18.0.0.209 installed. May be an issue with the site or their own doing of soft blocking Flash due to recent critical vulnerabilities in Flash.

Otherwise any version not on blocklist (for Windows) has never been soft blocked whether now or in past.

There was a weird situation once in past where the Adobe flash player for Android was getting the block when they added 11.1. versions to list for Linux. The person who did it did not make it Linux specific.

Give a link to the page where you saw this then if you indeed only have the plugin based Flash player 18.0.0.209 installed. May be an issue with the site or their own doing of soft blocking Flash due to recent critical vulnerabilities in Flash. Otherwise any version not on blocklist (for Windows) has never been soft blocked whether now or in past. There was a weird situation once in past where the Adobe flash player for Android was getting the block when they added 11.1. versions to list for Linux. The person who did it did not make it Linux specific.

Modified by James

Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

I do work for legal and military institutions and must keep my PC clean as a whistle - Contractual condition - which includes running content in major browsers. I particularly do not trust Google Chrome and Microsoft I.E. - data miners and cookie trackers &c., That necessitates settings with all history wiped on closing browser every time. I also must run a fast light system, so cannot keep a profile or history of Sessions etc. Tight security a must.

I wish I could give more info' but it occurred just before I registered with Mozilla Firefox Community and recording it was not on my mind until later, after I could not access two other web pages, but these did not have Flash Player running. The sites were www.quicksales.com.au/ and www.australialisted.com/. I could access the primary pages of each website, but not the linked pages behind them. I put these two URLs in my Kaspersky exclusion list and after that was able to then access the pages behind. This is not satisfactory as it means I have no protection when browsing them.

HOWEVER, before I did that, I tested accessing the secondary pages in I.E. and I could open them. That is the point and I seem to be the only Volunteer who is picking up on it. Perhaps because maybe I am the only volunteer who has experienced it. What ever the reason, it gives me certainty of the anomalies.

I do work for legal and military institutions and must keep my PC clean as a whistle - Contractual condition - which includes running content in major browsers. I particularly do not trust Google Chrome and Microsoft I.E. - data miners and cookie trackers &c., That necessitates settings with all history wiped on closing browser every time. I also must run a fast light system, so cannot keep a profile or history of Sessions etc. Tight security a must. I wish I could give more info' but it occurred just before I registered with Mozilla Firefox Community and recording it was not on my mind until later, after I could not access two other web pages, but these did not have Flash Player running. The sites were www.quicksales.com.au/ and www.australialisted.com/. I could access the primary pages of each website, but not the linked pages behind them. I put these two URLs in my Kaspersky exclusion list and after that was able to then access the pages behind. This is not satisfactory as it means I have no protection when browsing them. HOWEVER, '''''before''''' I did that, I tested accessing the secondary pages in I.E. and I'' could'' open them. '''''That''''' is the point and I seem to be the only Volunteer who is picking up on it. Perhaps because maybe I am the only volunteer who has experienced it. What ever the reason, it gives me certainty of the anomalies.

Modified by Dingeroo

James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

IE is a different web browser and it uses a ActiveX version of Flash player plugin so they do not really confirm it must be a Firefox problem.

IE is a different web browser and it uses a ActiveX version of Flash player plugin so they do not really confirm it must be a Firefox problem.
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Hi Dingeroo, I'm not familiar with the Kaspersky exclusion list or how Kaspersky's respective add-ons for Firefox and IE are different. Perhaps it is a question to be addressed in a different thread, or if it isn't linked to Firefox settings, on Kaspersky's forums.

Hi Dingeroo, I'm not familiar with the Kaspersky exclusion list or how Kaspersky's respective add-ons for Firefox and IE are different. Perhaps it is a question to be addressed in a different thread, or if it isn't linked to Firefox settings, on Kaspersky's forums.
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

I don't get the "in denial" mentality. You guys are meant to be the coal face of the solution process here and all you are doing is denying what users are telling you. I can prove it, if you compel me to.

I am not the only person saying this. There are quite a number. The most recent is this chap here in this post. He has downloaded the latest version, told you so, just hours ago and also told you that he still cannot access pages running Flash. But here you are telling me it does not happen!

This is the WRONG attitude of Moderators and Contributors and is not acting in the BEST interests of Mozilla, of Firefox's future, of the users who take the trouble to assist, including the volunteers.

Also what nonsense there has not been previous blocking by Firefox of software. As recently as 2014, you will find it in the Mozilla Support records that it was blocking BOTH Java and Adobe software to protect its users. I am shaking my head in disbelief at the crap being written here.

I don't get the "in denial" mentality. You guys are meant to be the coal face of the solution process here and all you are doing is denying what users are telling you. I can prove it, if you compel me to. I am not the only person saying this. There are quite a number. The most recent is [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1071612 '''this chap here in this post''']. He has downloaded the latest version, told you so, just hours ago and also told you that he still cannot access pages running Flash. But here you are telling me it does not happen! This is the WRONG attitude of Moderators and Contributors and is not acting in the BEST interests of Mozilla, of Firefox's future, of the users who take the trouble to assist, including the volunteers. Also what nonsense there has not been previous blocking by Firefox of software. As recently as 2014, you will find it in the Mozilla Support records that it was blocking BOTH Java and Adobe software to protect its users. I am shaking my head in disbelief at the crap being written here.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

He never did confirm that he did indeed only have latest plugin based version installed for Windows (either 18.0.0.209 or the 13.0.0.309 ESR) and what version Firefox was detecting in about:plugins

His OP has him using a Flash player 17.0 version.

He may claim to use computers for a long time but can you be certain he made sure no previous versions were still there. A number of users have experienced with the previous version 18.0.0.203 still being listed on system along with 18.0.0.209 as it was not cleaned up by new Flash Player install. A computer restart or deleting the old version can work.

The Flash player versions were not in blocklist for a good while before December 2014 since Feb/Mar 2013 simply because they were not affected by serious security concerns like the recent proven in wild critical vulnerabilities until December. So you would not find as many posts about Plugins being blocked December 2014 unless you went back to early 2013.

He never did confirm that he did indeed only have latest plugin based version installed for Windows (either 18.0.0.209 or the 13.0.0.309 ESR) and what version Firefox was detecting in about:plugins His OP has him using a Flash player 17.0 version. He may claim to use computers for a long time but can you be certain he made sure no previous versions were still there. A number of users have experienced with the previous version 18.0.0.203 still being listed on system along with 18.0.0.209 as it was not cleaned up by new Flash Player install. A computer restart or deleting the old version can work. The Flash player versions were not in blocklist for a good while before December 2014 since Feb/Mar 2013 simply because they were not affected by serious security concerns like the recent proven in wild critical vulnerabilities until December. So you would not find as many posts about Plugins being blocked December 2014 unless you went back to early 2013.

Modified by James

jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Hi Dingeroo, I don't think anyone denies that "sh*t happens" in Firefox from time to time. We are referencing what is normal because that has to be the starting point, and some deviations from normal are within the realm of experience and some are unexpected, bizarre, doubtful, or disturbing. But in my opinion, giving a methodical answer about how to track down the problem shouldn't be considered "denial."

The plugin block list is based on the version number. If Firefox has only a newer version than the one on the block list, then it should not be blocked. That leads to suggestions along the following lines for scenarios where an update seems unsuccessful:

(1) Maybe Adobe's installer couldn't remove the older version because it was in use. This seems to be the most common scenario. We suggest people check the about:plugins page or the actual install directory for the older version and provide suggestions for removing it.

(2) Maybe the permission did not switch back to "Always Activate" after the update. I'm not sure why this happens, but some users seem to have this experience. I would suggest first exiting Firefox and starting it up again to make sure the plugin registry is refreshed. Then the permission can be changed on the Add-ons page. If "Always Activate" is grayed and cannot be selected, then the plugin registry might be corrupted. However, this seems to be a rare case.

As for the other thread you referenced, the user was so angry about having to do updates at all that it's unclear whether we actually got all the facts in that case. As you can see, the discussion there was along other lines and didn't get into the technical considerations for post-update problems.

Hi Dingeroo, I don't think anyone denies that "sh*t happens" in Firefox from time to time. We are referencing what is normal because that has to be the starting point, and some deviations from normal are within the realm of experience and some are unexpected, bizarre, doubtful, or disturbing. But in my opinion, giving a methodical answer about how to track down the problem shouldn't be considered "denial." The plugin block list is based on the version number. If Firefox has ''only'' a newer version than the one on the block list, then it should ''not'' be blocked. That leads to suggestions along the following lines for scenarios where an update seems unsuccessful: (1) Maybe Adobe's installer couldn't remove the older version because it was in use. This seems to be the most common scenario. We suggest people check the about:plugins page or the actual install directory for the older version and provide suggestions for removing it. (2) Maybe the permission did not switch back to "Always Activate" after the update. I'm not sure why this happens, but some users seem to have this experience. I would suggest first exiting Firefox and starting it up again to make sure the plugin registry is refreshed. Then the permission can be changed on the Add-ons page. ''If "Always Activate" is grayed and cannot be selected,'' then the plugin registry might be corrupted. However, this seems to be a rare case. As for the other thread you referenced, the user was so angry about having to do updates at all that it's unclear whether we actually got all the facts in that case. As you can see, the discussion there was along other lines and didn't get into the technical considerations for post-update problems.
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

James! You did the same to that poor gentleman in the thread I linked to in my last post. You systematically don't read user's posts very well. There was NO Flash operating on those pages that I am speaking of. Read it AGAIN FFSAKE!

He DID confirm that the latest download did not fix it. READ IT AGAIN!

James this is most inappropriate in the public forum. We should adjourn this to the contributor's forum. I do not accept what you say and will argue it in there if you so desire. Quite frankly I can't be bothered. What you are banging on about is irrelevant. The facts are all that is relevant. Stick to them.

James! You did the same to that poor gentleman in the thread I linked to in my last post. You systematically don't read user's posts very well. There was NO Flash operating on those pages that I am speaking of. Read it AGAIN FFSAKE! He DID confirm that the latest download did not fix it. READ IT AGAIN! James this is most inappropriate in the public forum. We should adjourn this to the contributor's forum. I do not accept what you say and will argue it in there if you so desire. Quite frankly I can't be bothered. What you are banging on about is irrelevant. The facts are all that is relevant. Stick to them.

Modified by Dingeroo

jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Dingeroo said

Also what nonsense there has not been previous blocking by Firefox of software. As recently as 2014, you will find it in the Mozilla Support records that it was blocking BOTH Java and Adobe software to protect its users.

This is the only time I remember the latest available release of Flash being blocked. The flood of users coming to the forum saying they updated and it didn't help is something I think I would have remembered. Older releases do get blocked at various times, but we do not get too many threads about problems caused by those blocks. I suspect the reason for that is most people allow Flash to auto-update (which runs at Windows startup before Firefox would usually be open).

''Dingeroo [[#answer-757360|said]]'' <blockquote>Also what nonsense there has not been previous blocking by Firefox of software. As recently as 2014, you will find it in the Mozilla Support records that it was blocking BOTH Java and Adobe software to protect its users.</blockquote> This is the only time I remember the ''latest available release'' of Flash being blocked. The flood of users coming to the forum saying they updated and it didn't help is something I think I would have remembered. Older releases do get blocked at various times, but we do not get too many threads about problems caused by those blocks. I suspect the reason for that is most people allow Flash to auto-update (which runs at Windows startup before Firefox would usually be open).
Dingeroo 6 solutions 85 answers

jscher - appreciate your attempt to reason this calmly.

I appreciate the "norm" is the bar, the standard from which you rationalise, but that does not justify being joined to it at the hip. Just because software is not on the blocking list does not make it an iron clad cast in concrete impossibility that it won't run in Firefox for whatever reason. It is hardly a gold bullion licence to stare down clients and bald facedly tell them it isn't happening!!

That kind of behaviour sees users do exactly what that poor fellow did. Throw his words out in frustration and call you all "num nuts". I happen to agree with him.

I accept too, that my non-technical training mayhave 'thrown' terminology a bit awry through my use of "blocking", but surely this is where we must think laterally, aware that not everyone is technically trained. My meaning is that although no-one has been able to prove that Firefox is actively "blocking" Flash latest version, it could instead be some other glitch or bug preventing it from running in the Firefox browser, so the focus needs to move away from "actively blocking" and "blocking lists" to lateral thinking issues - if you get my drift.

I think even if this discussion is in civil tones, it still should actually be debated away from this public forum and perhaps in the Contributers' Forum also.

jscher - appreciate your attempt to reason this calmly. I appreciate the "norm" is the bar, the standard from which you rationalise, but that does not justify being joined to it at the hip. Just because software is not on the blocking list does not make it an iron clad cast in concrete impossibility that it won't run in Firefox for whatever reason. It is hardly a gold bullion licence to stare down clients and bald facedly tell them it isn't happening!! That kind of behaviour sees users do exactly what that poor fellow did. Throw his words out in frustration and call you all "num nuts". I happen to agree with him. I accept too, that my non-technical training mayhave 'thrown' terminology a bit awry through my use of "blocking", but surely this is where we must think laterally, aware that not everyone is technically trained. My meaning is that although no-one has been able to '''''prove''''' that Firefox is actively''''' "blocking"''''' Flash latest version, it could instead be some other glitch or bug preventing it from running in the Firefox browser, so the focus needs to move away from "actively blocking" and "blocking lists" to lateral thinking issues - if you get my drift. I think even if this discussion is in civil tones, it still should actually be debated away from this public forum and perhaps in the Contributers' Forum also.

Modified by Dingeroo

James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11248 answers

Dingeroo said

He DID confirm that the latest download did not fix it. READ IT AGAIN!

Sigh if you ever did any real support you would know that if a person says s/he installed latest version it does not mean s/he Only has that version installed or it was indeed the latest version without stating where the person got it and when.

Also there have been many people since December who said they had installed latest version of Flash player but it was being soft blocked. When asked what version and when installed, they said they installed version (which was previous) a week ago and thought it was still current.

As pointed out a number of users who installed (plugin based) 18.0.0.209 on Windows seemed to still have .203 or older version installed also. This itself caused people to come here and say things like "I have the latest version so why is it still being blocked!!!" for the past week.

Also that guy was more concerned about "I know what I am doing so let me use whatever version I want" ranting.

''Dingeroo [[#answer-757380|said]]'' <blockquote> He DID confirm that the latest download did not fix it. READ IT AGAIN! </blockquote> Sigh if you ever did any real support you would know that if a person says s/he installed latest version it does not mean s/he Only has that version installed or it was indeed the latest version without stating where the person got it and when. Also there have been many people since December who said they had installed latest version of Flash player but it was being soft blocked. When asked what version and when installed, they said they installed version (which was previous) a week ago and thought it was still current. As pointed out a number of users who installed (plugin based) 18.0.0.209 on Windows seemed to still have .203 or older version installed also. This itself caused people to come here and say things like "I have the latest version so why is it still being blocked!!!" for the past week. Also that guy was more concerned about "I know what I am doing so let me use whatever version I want" ranting.

Modified by James

jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Dear DougHines, sorry about all the off-topic follow-on notifications. If you haven't discovered this already and want it to end, next to your post you should be able to find Questions Tools > Stop Email Updates

Dear DougHines, sorry about all the off-topic follow-on notifications. If you haven't discovered this already and want it to end, next to your post you should be able to find Questions Tools > Stop Email Updates