A new Flexera Community experience is coming on November 18th, click here for more information.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Acrobat DC 2021 & 2022

I have noticed that Discovered Evidence for Adobe Acrobat DC versions 21 & 22 are pointing to the Acrobat Reader DC (2021) and Acrobat Reader DC (2022).  Why are these not pointing to Acrobat DC (2021) Continuous and Acrobat DC (2022) Continuous?  I'm having a hard time with my Acrobat subscription licenses since both versions are pointed to Reader.

(1) Solution

 .Ahh yes good spot there, I did not know that change was occurring. So least I can flag this back to the relevant teams. 

I guess looking at the documentation supplied by Adobe, the simple way would be for the Flexera agent to identify the appropriate flag in the registry as stated by Adobe > 

  • Browse to the following registry locationHKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat\DC\Installer\, and check the value of the key SCAPackageLevel.

    • If the value of SCAPackageLevel is 1, the installed application is Acrobat Reader DC.
    • If the value of SCAPackageLevel is greater than 1, the installed application is Acrobat DC.

@kclausen

View solution in original post

(11) Replies
ChrisG
By Community Manager Community Manager
Community Manager

I think what you're seeing here is the evidence that you get when either Acrobat or Acrobat Reader is installed - in Adobe's wisdom they have made no difference in the package name that gets installed with either of these two applications.

Take a look at the following thread for some discussion about this, and how it is handled by the ARL: Acrobat Reader DC detected as Acrobat DC.

(Did my reply solve the question? Click "ACCEPT AS SOLUTION" to help others find answers faster. Liked something? Click "KUDO". Anything expressed here is my own view and not necessarily that of my employer, Flexera.)

I have a question on Adobe Acrobat Pro. Flexera set up our original implementation on this product. I have a direct connect to my Adobe CC products in SaaS and that works fine. However,  I was told by Flexera to set up Acrobat Pro as a standard on prem user subscription license. I did that and I am getting messages where entitlements can't be applied. See case 02727850. Maybe you can help?

@dwc_76020 - Yesterday my local install of Acrobat Reader self-upgraded to version 2022.  After the upgrade:
1 - My Add/Remove Program Name simply says "Adobe Acrobat DC".
2 - My Start Menu now says "Adobe Acrobat DC"
3 - The Start Menu shortcut launches ACROBAT.EXE

So, looking at my Installer and File Evidence, it is now the same as if the full version of Acrobat DC is installed.

Glad to know I'm not the only one but what is Flexera going to do about it? 

We use MECM (SCCM) and the Flexera One agent to gather information.  I guess I trust the reports I can run out of MECM for now as it is identifying Adobe Acrobat DC 2022 and Adobe Acrobat Reader DC 2022.  I can then match it up against my known subscribers and go from there.  Just extra work...

Hello, 

Interestingly are you guys using Reader 64bit, as an initial thought? 

As I am not seeing the same behaviour on the 32bit version > 

2022-05-03_16-35-16.png2022-05-03_16-33-09.png

 

We are using the 32-bit version of Reader.

@bmaudlin - You may be on to something.  I have the 64-bit version of Acrobat Reader, which looking at the Installer Evidence has "Adobe Acrobat DC".


@kclausen Yep there is definitely something odd here.

I have installed the 32bit version on my Win 11 test instance,  and it installs into the following path > C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Acrobat Reader DC with the expected installer files. 

The 64bit version installs as > C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat DC\Acrobat and in multiple places seems to drop the Reader element such as this dialogue box, but everywhere else it shows Reader >

 
 

Screenshot 2022-05-04 220053.png

With the dialogue box, on the 32bit version it shows as Reader.

Very odd.

Ben

@bmaudlin - Adobe is moving Acrobat to a 64-bit standard.  As part of their architecture, they have a Universal 64-bit Installer for Acrobat.  This same installer is used for Acrobat Pro, Acrobat Std, and Acrobat Reader, which is why the Installation Evidence all looks the same. 

https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/kb/about-acrobat-reader-dc-migration-to-64-bit.html

Flexera has made a change in the ARL so that any evidence that says "Adobe Acrobat DC" is recognized as Acrobat Reader (so that an install of Reader is not counted as a commercial Acrobat install).  When using our agent, we continue to use the WMI Evidence we capture from the SWIDTAG to identify an install of Acrobat Pro or Acrobat Standard.  

Flexera is continuing to investigate and work with some of our customers on this, and hopefully we will have to make another change in our Agent Code specific to Adobe as when Acrobat DC was released.

 .Ahh yes good spot there, I did not know that change was occurring. So least I can flag this back to the relevant teams. 

I guess looking at the documentation supplied by Adobe, the simple way would be for the Flexera agent to identify the appropriate flag in the registry as stated by Adobe > 

  • Browse to the following registry locationHKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat\DC\Installer\, and check the value of the key SCAPackageLevel.

    • If the value of SCAPackageLevel is 1, the installed application is Acrobat Reader DC.
    • If the value of SCAPackageLevel is greater than 1, the installed application is Acrobat DC.

@kclausen

There also seems to be an issue in the ARL related to Adobe Acrobat which make it so we can't differentiate Adobe Acrobat DC 2022 and Adobe Acrobat Reader DC 2020. Under ARL Version: 2678, PURL Version: 502 I am seeing

We are not using the Agent, but using SCCM data which appears to be discovering the information correctly but the application "Adobe Acrobat Reader DC (2022)" has evidence for both "Adobe Acrobat DC" and "Adobe Acrobat Reader DC" pointed to the same installer evidence, for "Adobe Acrobat Reader DC"

I have created case 02577111 for this issue.