Is it possible to enable a command line flag for VeraCrypt setup to allow unattended (silent) installation?
I would like to implement it for a portable programs distribution so the user could install it with a simple click.
Thanks!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Unfortunately, this answer is not satisfactory at all.
Why?
People like "Anonymous", who ask for a silent install method, are usually admins of larger networks (50+ computers).
We are used to installing all sorts of OSS software (e.g. VLC Media Player, Libre Office, Gimp etc). All of those allow silent / unattended install, whereby it is simply assumed that the admin accepts the license on behalf of their organisation by deploying the software.
Could you please shed some light on the question of why exactly the VeraCrypt license is different here, requiring admins to theoretically walk to every machine, start the installer and explicitely accept the license for each and every machine by clicking "accept"?
Of course that's only in theory, I wouldn't know of any admin who does that for e.g. 300 machines. Sad as this may be, in practise of course admins who find out that automated installation of VeraCrypt is not wanted by its developers will move on to another solution like MS Bitlocker.
Best regards,
Peter
Last edit: baedamichi 2018-06-10
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Same question here ! Why ?
We want to deploy VeraCrypt on about 120 computers but no way to click on each licence message.
Please provide a workaround.
Thanks.
Ben
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'd like to also request this feature. Licensing is not a good excuse for blocking silent installs - commercial software (e.g. Microsoft Office) have strict licenses but still allow silent installs. Please could you revisit the thinking behind this as it is making an otherwise excellent piece of software unusable at scale.
Thanks and regards,
Andy.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Is it possible to enable a command line flag for VeraCrypt setup to allow unattended (silent) installation?
I would like to implement it for a portable programs distribution so the user could install it with a simple click.
Thanks!
The short answer is no due to licensing issue. See the explanation at this thread.
https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/discussions/579539
Unfortunately, this answer is not satisfactory at all.
Why?
People like "Anonymous", who ask for a silent install method, are usually admins of larger networks (50+ computers).
We are used to installing all sorts of OSS software (e.g. VLC Media Player, Libre Office, Gimp etc). All of those allow silent / unattended install, whereby it is simply assumed that the admin accepts the license on behalf of their organisation by deploying the software.
Could you please shed some light on the question of why exactly the VeraCrypt license is different here, requiring admins to theoretically walk to every machine, start the installer and explicitely accept the license for each and every machine by clicking "accept"?
Of course that's only in theory, I wouldn't know of any admin who does that for e.g. 300 machines. Sad as this may be, in practise of course admins who find out that automated installation of VeraCrypt is not wanted by its developers will move on to another solution like MS Bitlocker.
Best regards,
Peter
Last edit: baedamichi 2018-06-10
Hi,
Same question here ! Why ?
We want to deploy VeraCrypt on about 120 computers but no way to click on each licence message.
Please provide a workaround.
Thanks.
Ben
Hi there,
I'd like to also request this feature. Licensing is not a good excuse for blocking silent installs - commercial software (e.g. Microsoft Office) have strict licenses but still allow silent installs. Please could you revisit the thinking behind this as it is making an otherwise excellent piece of software unusable at scale.
Thanks and regards,
Andy.
how about a /accepourtEULA:true parameter?