Big mess with CC App auto upgrade

[adias]

I'm not sure you understand how bad and ham-fisted this is.

Adobe ARBITRARILY DELETED files in a folder they do not own on the user's hard drive. This is as incompetent as any software company could be.

The whole Creative Cloud architecture is a shit show. I won't use it, because simply to have Photoshop on my system, Adobe installs about 40 executables, of which no fewer than TEN of them are running AT ALL TIMES, even when I'm not using Photoshop. And a couple of them are just software update checkers, which, as it turns out, JUST GO AND EMPTY OUT THE CONTENTS OF SOME OF YOUR FOLDERS.

This is what you get when you outsource development to incompetent junior developers. This is really a violation of trust of the highest order: It doesn't MATTER that the folder was Backblaze; in fact they're just who noticed it. Adobe took the FIRST folder at the root of your file system and deleted the contents. For some people, their Backblaze backup status was deleted. For others, all their Spotlight data was lost (hey, Apple, your software sucks! Spotlight doesn't work! Can't you make software anymore?! For others, their version information for saves in Apple files was lost... again, NOT actually Apple's fault, but deleted by Adobe, and people may not even know about it for weeks because cause and effect with random deletions is so hard to discover).

Adobe also cannot really walk people through fixing this. Data has been deleted, and blindly. Unless people have a backup of that information, if it's critical, it's gone.

Honestly, I've seen some stupid software and bad QA in my time, but if I had a top 100, this would be in the top 2 of incompetence. It's ghastly bad how they shipped this.

Agreed! Agree also on the services running in the background. Insane and abusive in my book.

If Adobe reads this... Adobe: redesign the CC app. Make it passive, meaning no services running, just a gateway to download CC apps ON user demand. No push mode. We all know when upgrades are announced and we can just as well fetch them.

[adias]

I never had the rogue CC app... Yesterday I downloaded the new one. I suspect though that the app is still buggy. Worked until today but now I got this warning(see attachment). Rebooting the machine seems to work again. But it appears that the mess continues. I repeat - Adobe, just make a simple app loader, controlled by the user; no background services, no push behavior, just user commanded fetch. What's wrong with that?

[davidgp]

I'm using Backblaze and I was affected by this error, disabling autoupdate right now... For me, and I assume the rest of Backblaze users to solve the issue was easy, we just needed to readd the main drive in the list of drives to backup... After some minutes, Backblaze reindexes the drive and everything is back to normal... But as a professional software developer, this error, deleting the contents of the first folder alphabetically, I can not understand how someone could thought it was a way to do things...

At the beginning I also thought it was a Backblaze problem... Kudos to Backblaze to be able to do the connection... I think it was not an easy one to debug...


http://dgpfotografia.com

[john beardsworth]

I'm not sure you understand how bad and ham-fisted this is.

I'm not sure you understand you're hyperventilating....

One would hope forum posts would not be snarky... but should you have experienced the issue, do you know which files were missing?

Some of us have extensive IT knowledge and some of us would not be so arrogant as declaring a 'know it all' re a rogue action created by a buggy application.

Before you get on your hind legs, maybe consider you may not be the only one. As I've said, I find it hard to understand why a service should delete files this way - it seems obvious that if you delete stuff, you use a method more robust than seems to have happened. But I also think you have to put this in context - a bug affecting apps that leave the house key under the plant pot outside the front door, risk disclosed, bug fixed already. But no, it's the same old, same old....

[kirkt]

I read about it last week.  The hidden folder ".DocumentRevisons-V100" is still present on my machine - the owner of the folder is ROOT - how Adobe's updater is able to delete that is beyond me.  Nothing happened.  I don't know what else to tell you.

kirk

You don't have to use the "affected" software, it was happenstance that Backblaze users that first discovered the issue.... the installer simply deleted the the contents of the folder at the top of the hierarchy of your root folder.

Watch the videos at this site:

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/13/warning-adobe-creative-cloud-deletes-data-in-your-mac-root-directory/

Like I pointed out earlier, if the folder that had it's content deleted is something you don't use often ... you may not notice it's missing.

[ButchM]

I read about it last week.  The hidden folder ".DocumentRevisons-V100" is still present on my machine - the owner of the folder is ROOT - how Adobe's updater is able to delete that is beyond me.  Nothing happened.  I don't know what else to tell you.

kirk

1. The CC Desktop app does not delete the folder ... it deletes the contents of the folder ... also, the affected folder did not have to be of the 'hidden' variety. It just had to be the first folder in the list.

2. Are you sure that was the top-most folder at the time of the installation of the faulty CC Desktop app. Few, if any users are that well aware of the contents of their root folder.

3.

"how Adobe's updater is able to delete that is beyond me."

... this is exactly the point. Adobe should never have allowed such code to be delivered to end users.

4. If you have not experienced an issue, it was purely by happenstance ... or you haven't yet invoked the application that no longer has access to the missing, supported files.

[ButchM]

But I also think you have to put this in context - a bug affecting apps that leave the house key under the plant pot outside the front door, risk disclosed, bug fixed already. But no, it's the same old, same old....

Really? This is more like the delivery man took the house key from under the flower pot and threw it into the rubbish ... then the rubbish man took it to the landfill ...

Yes, this matter certainly does need to be in context. First and foremost this is not a 'bug' per se ... it was not a result of competing or overlapping code. It was the result of poorly written code that was approved for delivery to end users without proper testing. It was incompetence at more than one level, not an accidental coincidence. Period.

If you wish to classify this issue as the 'same old, same old' ... fine ... then you would be severely out of context as I don't recall any similar instance in the past.

[john beardsworth]

Of course it's a bug, a stupid one too. Sorry not to join the lynch mob, but this one was fixed before the OP even started the thread....

[ButchM]

Of course it's a bug, a stupid one too. Sorry not to join the lynch mob, but this one was fixed before the OP even started the thread....

No one's asking you to join the lynch mob ... and your definition of 'fixed' is about as accurate as your chosen definition of what a bug is.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Of course it's a bug, a stupid one too. Sorry not to join the lynch mob, but this one was fixed before the OP even started the thread....

Sorry John,

It is NOT A BUG, the removal of folder contents was intentional, it was coded to do exactly that. It is sheer incompetent coding to not specify which folder contents to address, and a massive failure at releasing this flawed code without good final release checks. Quality assurance seems to have gone out of the window, and it seems to happen more frequently. This is a trend (!) that needs to be stopped. Classifying it as a mere bug won't achieve that.

Cheers,
Bart

[adias]

I agree it is not a bug. It was a deliberate and irresponsible programming action. Blindly deleting the contents of a hidden folder without owning it is irresponsible. Not acceptable coming from a junior developer and never acceptable coming from Adobe.

The fanboys who dismiss this as not a big deal are doing a disservice to the user community and Adobe. Adobe must come to grips with an issue like this and review internal programming best practices. It is that serious!

[john beardsworth]

I agree it is not a bug. It was a deliberate and irresponsible programming action. Blindly deleting the contents of a hidden folder without owning it is irresponsible. Not acceptable coming from a junior developer and never acceptable coming from Adobe.

The fanboys who dismiss this as not a big deal are doing a disservice to the user community and Adobe. Adobe must come to grips with an issue like this and review internal programming best practices. It is that serious!

Nonsense. It was obviously a stupid bug, not remotely deliberate. It's the whiners who are doing the disservice with such hype. This one was fixed before you posted - even the other LL thread had already died a death!

[Tim Lookingbill]

What I'ld like to know is whether anyone can tell if this is human error from sabotage within Adobe's ranks. I don't think it's really hard to conceal passive aggressive, accidentally on purpose behavior in something as complex as writing code in such a huge company. Are there trace backs to the person or persons who wrote the code and will Adobe use waterboarding or a pay raise to deal with the problem? 

I sort of saw something like this coming when I first thoroughly understood how the CC subscription route worked. Wonder what else is going on the user isn't aware until it's discovered later on by some other small software company.

I'm getting a lot of "I don't know how this could happen" from very educated folks in this discussion and yet we seem to just take it in stride. At least it's not as bad as what's happened with car airbags and unexplained throttle acceleration in the automobile industry where people lost their lives.

What do we stand to lose in this type of situation with software? In this situation we have to trust Adobe but there's really no way to verify. Or we just keep backing up our entire systems and hope what we don't know won't hurt us down the line.

[ButchM]

Nonsense. It was obviously a stupid bug, not remotely deliberate. It's the whiners who are doing the disservice with such hype. This one was fixed before you posted - even the other LL thread had already died a death!

Please define how Adobe actually "fixed" the issue when they don't know exactly which users were affected or what specific files need to be replaced? Yes, they repaired the installer on their end ... I fail to see how they fixed anything else. Seriously, how many CC users on the Mac platform are even aware that potentially important files on their root directory were deleted? Yet you deem the issue as non existent or inconsequential?

Also ... what hype? An opinion that differs from your view is now automatically to be considered hype?

While I can agree with you, this situation was likely not a deliberate attempt to cause harm ... even you should be concerned that more due diligence was not employed beforehand so as to avoid the necessity to fix anything. Shouldn't we expect better from a corporation that counts their revenue in the increments of billions of dollars? Do they not employ the best and the brightest ... or should we silently accept whatever is offered in a gleeful manner without question?

Bottom line is Adobe #@%*ed up. If they had not created the issue ... the so-called 'whiners' would now be silent. If you are experiencing discomfort from the results ... how about you lobby with your friends at Adobe to do  better job?

[Tim Lookingbill]

The question needs to be asked..."How bad can it get?".

If no one can give a believable and understandable answer then we deserve what we get. Adobe is going to make mistakes like this into the future. Get used to it.

[john beardsworth]

Please define how Adobe actually "fixed" the issue when they don't know exactly which users were affected or what specific files need to be replaced? Yes, they repaired the installer on their end ... I fail to see how they fixed anything else. Seriously, how many CC users on the Mac platform are even aware that potentially important files on their root directory were deleted? Yet you deem the issue as non existent or inconsequential?

Any reasonable person would define fixing a bug as withdrawing the faulty program and issuing a corrected version before the OP even figured out there was a problem. Look at the bug, what it did and how it was triggered, and you'd adopt a more balanced view too.

Also ... what hype? An opinion that differs from your view is now automatically to be considered hype?

That's your definition. Mine's based on what walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

[ButchM]

Look at the bug, what it did and how it was triggered, and you'd adopt a more balanced view too.

Balanced view? Did I not give Adobe credit for correcting the CC Desktop installer in an efficient manner? (more than once as I recall) If there is an imbalance of view, you may require a mirror to determine it's source.

Maybe I hold Adobe to a little higher standard. After all, if this so-called 'bug' was so easily 'fixed' ... How did it avoid detection during pre-release testing? Is the use of Backblaze by CC subscribers on the Mac Platform so obscure a combination, as to evade detection by Adobe's testing procedures?

[adias]

...
What do we stand to lose in this type of situation with software? In this situation we have to trust Adobe but there's really no way to verify. Or we just keep backing up our entire systems and hope what we don't know won't hurt us down the line.

AFAIC push-driven monitoring installers have potential for a lot of mischief. This particular installer runs constantly a minimum of 6 services wasting resources for no justified reason. I do not want a tickler for updates, as I update when I so decide. For licensing checks each application could simply check with Adobe one time when launched and be done. And even that should allow for lack of IP connectivity, which it does.

[CatOne]

Nonsense. It was obviously a stupid bug, not remotely deliberate. It's the whiners who are doing the disservice with such hype. This one was fixed before you posted - even the other LL thread had already died a death!

It doesn't matter that it was "fixed" before the user posted. Many of the people won't notice the data loss for days or weeks to come; they'll have some bizarre side effects ("hey, my backups haven't run for a week!" or hey, "Spotlight doesn't work", or basically data from ANY FOLDER that happened to be storing data in the root folder for whatever reason).

If you're curious as to why BackBlaze has its folder, their CTO explained it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/45jtqw/warning_bug_in_adobe_creative_cloud_deletes_mac/czyq705

Indeed it's not a best practice for an application to store stuff at the root of the disk. However, even without 3rd part applications, there are things that store data there, for example on my system:

trebor:/ user$ ls -al
total 77
drwxr-xr-x    31 root  wheel   1122 Feb 13 17:06 .
drwxr-xr-x    31 root  wheel   1122 Feb 13 17:06 ..
-rw-rw-r--     1 root  admin  12292 Feb  4 16:27 .DS_Store
d--x--x--x     9 root  wheel    306 Feb 13 17:08 .DocumentRevisions-V100
drwxr-xr-x     2 root  wheel     68 Oct  9  2014 .PKInstallSandboxManager
drwx------     5 root  wheel    170 Oct  9  2014 .Spotlight-V100
d-wx-wx-wt     2 root  wheel     68 Apr  8  2015 .Trashes
drwxrwxrwx     4 root  wheel    136 Oct 27  2014 .bzvol
----------     1 root  admin      0 Jan 30 16:38 .file
drwx------  2019 root  wheel  68646 Feb 17 10:52 .fseventsd
drwxr-xr-x@    2 root  wheel     68 Nov 18 15:15 .vol

Just whacking one of those folders could be bad, depending on what's in it. And because people are bad with cause-and-effect in general, especially when separated by days or weeks, they're going to be confused and blaming non-Adobe companies for weeks, despite the fixing of this "bug." This issue is not over for users.

[john beardsworth]

Balanced view? Did I not give Adobe credit for correcting the CC Desktop installer in an efficient manner? (more than once as I recall)

You certainly did, just as I keep referring to the bug as stupid and hard to understand.

Maybe I hold Adobe to a little higher standard. After all, if this so-called 'bug' was so easily 'fixed' ... How did it avoid detection during pre-release testing? Is the use of Backblaze by CC subscribers on the Mac Platform so obscure a combination, as to evade detection by Adobe's testing procedures?

But not just Backblaze whose problem was, AFAICS, simply down to their place in the alphabet rather than their risky use of the root folder. I'm not sure what the faulty version was supposed to fix or add, but my guess is that the focus was on those aspects and, like looking at action through a long lens, no-one noticed what was happening elsewhere on the field when the user signed in to CC app, which they wouldn't normally need to do.