Why not update S9y through SPARTACUS?

[hgoor]

Hi all, and a Merry Xmas before I forget it!

I was wondering: why hasn'y anyone build in an update feature for S9y itself using Spartacus?

It can update plugins and such why not S9y itself? Also: having this as a update "service" it means less people run versions that are not secure..

Just thought...

[garvinhicking]

Hi!

I was wondering: why hasn'y anyone build in an update feature for S9y itself using Spartacus?

You've asked this in the past already, I think? The answer always has been, that it would impose a security risk because all files would need to be writable. It could be exploitable. This answer is still valid.

Apart from that: We don't have the infrastructure to delive s9y packes. They are much larger than plugins only.

Regards,
Garvin

[hgoor]

Hi!

I was wondering: why hasn'y anyone build in an update feature for S9y itself using Spartacus?

You've asked this in the past already, I think? The answer always has been, that it would impose a security risk because all files would need to be writable. It could be exploitable. This answer is still valid.

Apart from that: We don't have the infrastructure to delive s9y packes. They are much larger than plugins only.

Regards,
Garvin

yeah I tend to repeat my ideas sometimes.

Still I don't see how this would be a bigger or different security risk than having SPARTACUS install plugins and such..

[garvinhicking]

Hi!

yeah I tend to repeat my ideas sometimes.

I also tend to repeat my answers *g*

Still I don't see how this would be a bigger or different security risk than having SPARTACUS install plugins and such..

Plugins are only executed through the Plugin API, and thus can at least be partially validated. If you are able to replace core files, this is no longer possible. Plus, it's also a speed/bandwidth issue.

Regards,
Garvin