Autoupdating jEmplode?

I have autoupdating Hijack .... Would people be too freaked out with an autoupdating jEmplode (as far as security)? I won't bother with it if it would just make the majority of people nervous (obviously it would be toggleable) about just downloading a new app onto their system.

Mike

I'd like autoupdating Jemplode.

To give the most options, I would have it an option for JEmplode to check for a new version, and give the user the choice to upgrade.. If you can get it to display the changes between their current version and the new version, it'll be even better.

Yeah -- It would be cool to add "what's new" to Hijack update too, but I didn't want to bother Mark with additional work on every release. I say this out loud, since I know he's watching .... waiting .....

Well.. you know what the current version is, so you could go through the HTML of the Hijack website and pull the descriptions of the versions that came after..

Yeah -- I might do that ... The HTML is pretty easily "recognizable".

Yep, me to. Sounds good :-)

I like that idea...
and the "new features" idea too...

I like the all in one Idea ...

Mike, if you do add auto-updating Jemplode, could you perhaps add a feature to both the Jemplode update and the Hijack update?

I would like the auto-update of both products to be three states: Yes, No, and Prompt.

For instance, if Yes and Prompt are enabled, it could auto-check for a new update and decide if a new one was available. If one isn't available, the user doesn't get bothered by it. But if one is available, then if Prompt is selected, the user will be asked if they want to upgrade.

Reason I want this: I usually want to auto-update Hijack, but recently I was playing with Genexia's version 244 build, and it accidentally got auto-overwritten by Jemplode with a 246 Hijack because I had the feature enabled.

yeah...that's a good point...
maybe if you get the "new features" working then that would be "Prompt" mode?

Also, an issue I noticed...is there anything (probaly Mark) that could be done so that I can be alerted to or updating can be attempted even if I have khttp_files=0?

What does khttp_files=0 mean? Is it causing a problem with jEmplode updates?

it's in the config.ini for security...
actually it's as ;@WORK khttpd_files=0
it means people can't see files or content of files over http, unless it's on the approved list Mark built into hijack...html, js, jpeg and the such are on it but not files with no extensions...
I was really hoping, maybe Mark could allow requests of these files in the /proc dir since they aren't true "files"
the problem this is currently causing with jEmplode is that I don't think it knows that I have hijack installed, and I know it can't find the version in /proc/version
I use jemplode at work to upload most of my files over ethernet because I don't really have my home network setup properly for the empeg at home...and downloading new versions of hijack over the corporate lan is faster then dialup
so at work it never tries to update even with new versions, but as soon as I switch to HOME mode it updates immediately...
but that's just my experience, and wish...won't be too disapported if it never comes true...

I had a similar problem in this thread -

http://empeg.comms.net/php/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hackers_prog&Number=80217&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=all

It just seemed like I was doing something wrong, message 'wrong ver of hijack, ethernet connect, use hijack where poss" etc.... After extensive config.ini testing, I do have the ;@WORK khttpd_files=0 set, but it wasn't messing with the home profile, but didn't try to update with work profile.
What does occur was the kftpd_password=heytheretux I did have set, prevented the Animation editor from connecting. It also made -update hijack- tell me everything was upto date, even when I went back hijack versions....

So I guess it's just a matter of catering for ftp passwords, read from config.ini and maybe the potential block with the khttpd_files setting. Although I guess in some way, it is there for blocking exactly this sort of updating.... I can see the post topic now.... Some bastard came over the LAN (or internet published) empeg, and uploaded this bastard kernel, now all I get is a frogger animation logo and the macarena song...

Ha ha.... You know if the empeg was not such a techno/hack magnet there'd be no chance.... but....

Cheers,

Kieran
OZ

It would be cool if we could autoupdate hijack and jemplode.

I replied to your other post before I saw this one...
I think we'll have to wait till Mark returns and see what he says...I think that you can already update hijack even with files=0 if you have the password, but the reason jEmplode wont do it is that it is unable to read the /proc/version file to see if it a new version or not, that is a file that it checks (through http?) to get your version number...you should view and you'll see what I mean.

Weird -- I could have sworn that I responded to this, but my response is hiding somewhere ...

jEmplode doesn't provide any UI for FTP username/password ... I never really considered it. So that will definitely cause problems if you have it set. I'll try to provide for this in an upcoming version.

Mike

(you replied in the other thread about this, jEmplode 32 I think)

I was curious are you checking the /proc/version string with http or ftp?
if http, then passwords still won't help. the other thing, you don't need usernames because you can just use nothing, or anything, but it would be nice to just have a field to enter a the ftp password into jEmplode.

Currently FTP.

cool...
then do you think you could throw a password box on the config screen?

Yep -- that's where it would be

also...
are you working on the auto update?
I think that'll be really nice...

questions questions... Yeah, I am .. It will be a couple days before the next release is out though (in the middle of house-buying funnybusiness).

Mike

great, thanks...
yeah that stuff is always fun...

/proc/version is accessible via FTP regardless of the "khttpd_files=0" setting. But I can still add an "exception" for that particular entry if needed.

-ml

yeah...I was trying to hit it via http...
the real issue was not using ftp by password, so it wasn't connecting
it's totally up to you, but it would be kinda nice to see some of the stuff in /proc/ via http even when files=0, but I don't really care if you don't want to code it

I think v248 now allows access to /proc/version regardless.

yeah I just noticed in the other thread...
thank you very much

by the way...
I just noticed, you don't have 248 on the revision history list

Thanks. done.