Auto update

[zyx360]

Hi,
I'm a filezilla pro user, thanks for the awesome client
Just wanted to check, is there a way to submit a feature request?
I think it would be a great option if you can choose to install updates automatically in the background, instead checking/of going through an update each time the client starts.
Thanks
Zyx

[botg]

Such background updaters are surprisingly tricky, very easy to accidentally create a gaping security hole. And the updater too needs to be updated as well... The main challenge is Windows itself, files in use cannot be overwritten. Try deleting filezilla.exe while it is running.

Please note that our dedicated customer support forums are located at https://customerforum.filezilla-project.org/

[boco]

How about a small maintenance service that's updating FileZilla while it's NOT running?

[botg]

My previous statement still holds.

[zyx360]

Not saying it should be the default, but it would be a nice feature.
Not a real argument but a lot of other tools do offer this feature, for me personally the tradeoff is worth not having to go through those screens upon filezilla startup.

-Peter

[botg]

Even outside of spooktober, the thought of implementing a background update service gives me the heebie-jeebies. You see it from an above perspective, how it could benefit you. But I see it from the opposite end: The nitty-gritty details, the myriad things how it could could go horribly wrong.

With the current approach, there is always a privileged user in the loop:

• Has the privileges to run the update (either local install, or member of administrator group)
• Sees the UAC prompt, and can reject it, e.g. due to lack of signature. Yes, Windows to this day does not have an API to say "Only run/load signed binaries" [1]. While there is some flag to require signatures by Microsoft, we are obviously not Microsoft. Even the most inexperienced user in this regard has more insight into the authenticity of programs, and thus control over what programs to run, than even the most skilled developers.
• If things go wrong, by virtue of being the privileged user, the user can recover from failure. In case of automated failures, non-privileged users would be utterly locked out.

[1] Counter-argument: Apple is the other extreme. It's insanely difficult to run things not approved by Apple. What we lack is a reasonable middle-ground.

[zyx360]

That sounds reasonable.
I think the point i was trying to make (without writing it correctly) was more like an complimentary approach to update the app.
I see tools like thunderbird, firefox, chrome, vscode, etc all offer this feature.
And by complimenting it to the current options your really empowering the user to make the choice individually, whatever works for them so to speak.

[boco]

How about offering the choice to do the update when FileZilla closes (update deferring)? Of course, blocked if important security are involved.