Unitrunker Forcing Users To Update?

[RadioDitch]

Morning all...

I generally always run Unitrunker in the background while I'm working throughout the day, so I can examine the data later. Yesterday, I started my day and attempted to open Unitrunker as I always do. However, for the first time ever I was met with this message telling me to upgrade to a newer version.



I clicked okay, and the program exited, not allowing me to use Unitrunker. If I clicked cancel, it still exited the program, not allowing me to use Unitrunker. As I have the program on multiple computers, I checked the others. I received this same message on all of them, except the one which is air gapped and does not connect to the internet.

To be clear, I was running the latest final release, 2.1.0.110, on all of them. I uninstalled it on two PC's, re-downloaded the install file directly from Unitrunker's website, and reinstalled the program. After restarting these two computers, I tried again to open the freshly reinstalled version 2.1.0.110, and was met with the same message.

Currently, the only other versions available are 'preview' versions from the Google Group, of which I am a member. Once I installed a developmental preview version, 2.2.037, I was again able to use the program. These preview versions though of course are basically beta of the future version 2.2 which has not yet had a full final release, and may have bugs and issues. I prefer to use the full release versions. Just personal preference.

I attempted to send a message in the Google Group asking about this message and if there was some essential need to upgrade. However, the Unitrunker dev who operates and moderates the group has not yet approved my message to be sent in the group after about 24 hours. He also has not reached out to me in response, which of course is more than an acceptable avenue to answer. He's a great guy, and normally extremely helpful and dedicated to his users.

Has anyone else encountered this message and obstruction?

It's clearly not a Windows issue. As presented this is definitely the program itself generating the message.

What concerns me about that is that it would indicate the program may possibly have one or more elements to it that have not been disclosed. It possibly (speculation) either:

1. Has a clock element which causes the program to cease to function after a given period of time to require an upgrade. Or...
2. The program is able to utilize one's network in the background for data collection or to receive a trigger to require an upgrade to a preview version.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. But to me this seems problematic. I know some people may not care, but to those of us who hold certain views on technology privacy and rights, this is concerning. If it's using my network, I'd like that disclosed. And either way, I don't believe a person should be forced to upgrade to a given version of any software.

If anyone else has any reports, answers, or helpful information, could you share it?

Thanks!

 

[Mobby1-Kenobby]

Hi, to RadioDitch

Screenshot of what I am seeing for Unitrunker web address.


Cheers.

 

[bunangst]

Hi, to RadioDitch

Screenshot of what I am seeing for Unitrunker web address.
View attachment 194753

Cheers.

That's an HTTP warning vs HTTPS (secured)

 

[RadioDitch]

Hi, to RadioDitch

Screenshot of what I am seeing for Unitrunker web address.


Cheers.

When I first went to redownload the current release, I saw the same. It's just an expired certificate from what I see. I continued to the site and my security software didn't detect any malicious connections or other issues, and I was able to continue to the downloads page.

Also I just retested the issue. Again, with the latest release version, 2.1.0.110, I receieved the message requiring an upgrade on an internet connected device, but not the air gapped device. Hmmm...

 

[batdude]

i had the same problem this morning. I do not use UT anymore now that the local EDACS trunk has transitioned. However, after installing/removing 2x, the program DID start.... YMMV this is v2.1.0.110

 

[RadioDitch]

i had the same problem this morning. I do not use UT anymore now that the local EDACS trunk has transitioned. However, after installing/removing 2x, the program DID start.... YMMV this is v2.1.0.110

Thanks for the report. It's still concerning that the program appears to be attempting to obstruct use and force an upgrade to a beta 'preview' version at all.

 

[EmergencyResponseWatch]

We're having the same issue with Unitrunker



Does anybody have a fix for this yet?!

 

[dave3825]

I attempted to send a message in the Google Group asking about this message and if there was some essential need to upgrade. However, the Unitrunker dev who operates and moderates the group has not yet approved my message to be sent in the group after about 24 hours. He also has not reached out to me in response, which of course is more than an acceptable avenue to answer. He's a great guy, and normally extremely helpful and dedicated to his users.

Keep in mind its a holiday and he could be away. You could always tag people by typing @ followed by username. Like, @Unitrunker2

To be clear, I was running the latest final release, 2.1.0.110, on all of them. I uninstalled it on two PC's, re-downloaded the install file directly from Unitrunker's website, and reinstalled the program. After restarting these two computers, I tried again to open the freshly reinstalled version 2.1.0.110, and was met with the same message.

It could mean he uploaded a newer version to his server but has not made an official announcement yet.

Again, its a holiday.

 

[RadioDitch]

Keep in mind its a holiday and he could be away. You could always tag people by typing @ followed by username. Like, @Unitrunker2

Genuinely wasn't aware he was a member here. My apologies to him for that. Also I had honestly forgotten it was a holiday. Unfortunately some of still have to work today. lol.

It could mean he uploaded a newer version to his server but has not made an official announcement yet.

And that's fair. But I would still have an issue with being unable to use the current release program until it were uploaded. Doing so after a new version were released would be more understandable despite still being objectionable.

 

[EmergencyResponseWatch]

Genuinely wasn't aware he was a member here. My apologies to him for that. Also I had honestly forgotten it was a holiday. Unfortunately some of still have to work today. lol.



And that's fair. But I would still have an issue with being unable to use the current release program until it were uploaded. Doing so after a new version were released would be more understandable despite still being objectionable.

Try to open it now and hitting "Cancel" when it tells you to update to a newer version.

We're now able to by-pass the update notification.

 

[RadioDitch]

Try to open it now and hitting "Cancel" when it tells you to update to a newer version.

We're now able to by-pass the update notification.

Okay, thanks. Previously Cancel also just closed the program, inhibiting use. So that's good.

But I'm still concerned about the mechanism that facilitated this event. It appears the application has some communication ability back to a server that I have never seen documentation or disclosure of. And it was inhibiting use at the time. Both are problematic.

 

[mtindor]

Okay, thanks. Previously Cancel also just closed the program, inhibiting use. So that's good.

But I'm still concerned about the mechanism that facilitated this event. It appears the application has some communication ability back to a server that I have never seen documentation or disclosure of. And it was inhibiting use at the time. Both are problematic.

Why is it problematic? 99.9% of the applications that a person installs on Windows phones home to somewhere. Do you actually notify the authors of every program you install that phones home?

I know, seems odd to me too. But not too odd. It could be something as simple as some "future" feature partially implemented at the present time. Or it could be some unique string that is created on install of each UT installation on each computer that allows the author to know how many copies have actually been installed on computers. If I were writing free software, I would want some metric to exist that would allow me to know how many installations of my free product are in use. That would be a useful and satisfying metric to know.

At any rate, as odd and unwanted as it may be, I'm sure there is nothing nefarious or malicious about it.

 

[sonm10]

This issue has come up before, although I forget the reason.

Click Cancel, program while open normally.

 

[RadioDitch]

This issue has come up before, although I forget the reason.

Click Cancel, program while open normally.

Originally when I did, it did not open. It exited. It's since for some reason started working again when clicking cancel. Thanks for the help and report.

 

[RadioDitch]

At any rate, as odd and unwanted as it may be, I'm sure there is nothing nefarious or malicious about it.

Definitely not. Not for a second do I think there is anything malicious or nefarious about. Not at all.

But I just believe it should be disclosed to users it does. Other programs make users aware in the license and features that a given app does automatic updates or data collection. The user should be able to be aware of it so they can block the program's network access, or choose to use another application if they so wish.

It's about an informed consumer, not anything necessarily bad with the devs. I respect your view, I just have a different perspective on tech ethics. I just think someone should be able to know what they're putting on their machine. (Shrug)

I also think a user should be permitted to elect whether or not to update or remain on a given version.

 

[mtindor]

Definitely not. Not for a second do I think there is anything malicious or nefarious about. But I just believe it should be disclosed to users it does. Other programs make users aware in the license and features that a given app does automatic updates or data collection. The user should be able to be aware of it so they can block the program's network access, or choose to use another application if they so wish.

It's about an informed consumer, not anything necessarily bad with the devs. I respect your view, I just have a different perspective on tech ethics. I just think someone should be able to know what they're putting on their machine. (Shrug)

In the google group for Unitrunker, or in some thread on the forums (but probably the group) I vaguely do recall somebody asking or Rick mentioning something about what it might be reaching out to home for. Somehow I am thinking it was part of some future things he was doing in UT that weren't developed yet. I could be totally wrong / mis-remembering though.

I'd attempt to find where I might of read that, but I'd probably lose 8 hours of the day trying to search it down

Mike

 

[enosjones]

I'm still using version2.0. 107, way back before unitrunker started making changes, I got that error too and the notifications to update. my version is an older one , the updated one is changed and I've hesitated to update.. I've not been forced to update til now.

 

[KevinC]

I don't use UT and not defending Rick, but I can absolutely see a reason to force people to update. It keeps him from having to support versions that are way old with known issues that have been resolved.

This may not be the issue here, but if so I can completely understand it.

 

[GTR8000]

That was absolutely the issue. People were joining the Google group and were installing preview versions (aka beta, or even alpha in some cases), and never bothering to keep up to date. Rick would subsequently release a dozen or more previews that fixed numerous bugs. Someone would then come along with a badly outdated preview asking for help on bugs that had already been addressed long ago. That was the impetus for Rick to code a ticking time bomb into each preview release. I believe initially it was 12 months, then he expanded it to 18 months. Which by the way is extremely generous given the ever-evolving nature of Unitrunker previews (there were 74 previews of 2.0, 110 previews of 2.1, and so far 37 previews of 2.2).

Participation in the Google group and installing those preview versions is entirely voluntary, however Rick has always asked that early adopters stay as current as possible to avoid having to support many stages of the software's evolution. I don't think that's an unreasonable request, especially for such feature rich software that he has developed for over two decades at no charge to end users.

Anyway, my hunch is that the ticking time bomb code wasn't scrubbed before 2.1.0.110 was promoted to an official public release.

 

[enosjones]

but he also said it wasn't mandatory to switch if we felt uneasy about it until all bugs were resolved.