Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Process Explorer on steroids


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 joakim

joakim

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 912 posts
  • Location:Bergen
  •  
    Norway

Posted 21 June 2009 - 06:37 AM

Came across a utility called ProcessHacker that seems to be capable of quite a lot interesting stuff.

http://processhacker...e.net/index.php

Downside is dotnet2 dependency.

Joakim

#2 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10544 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:28 AM

Very interesting tool.

The part of stopping hidden process sounds very good. It's not easy to fix a windows computer whenever these rootkits get installed.

;)

#3 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:00 AM

;) nice find - works fine on PE as it does not need to be installed. Runs from a portable directory
Thanks for posting this

Ulli

#4 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 02:42 PM

Unusable for a PE, IMO, as it is .Net crap.

:lol:

#5 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:11 PM

:lol: of course its unusable on PEs without .net - but it sure is no crap - on the contrary

#6 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 27 June 2009 - 06:38 PM

;) of course its unusable on PEs without .net - but it sure is no crap - on the contrary


It's all a question of mathematics, and the particular mathematical language and conventions you use.

In my personal mathematical language, this equation is TRUE:
PE+.Net=BLOAT

.Net is a queer element, that makes the result of summing with it any other element to be always equal to BLOAT, like in:
anything+.Net=BLOAT
0+.Net=BLOAT

Of course there is an exception:
∞+.Net=∞

but that is a property of ∞ (Infinity), though according to several authors there are infinities of different order of magnitude, and thus this would prove true:
∞+.Net=BLOATED ∞

:lol:

jaclaz

#7 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 27 June 2009 - 08:30 PM

Hey folks ... listen
Jaclaz sitting in the dark by the campfire - looking at the moon , whistling old tunes and playing his harp.
Isn't it romantic ? :lol:

#8 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:32 AM

Hey folks ... listen
Jaclaz sitting in the dark by the campfire - looking at the moon , whistling old tunes and playing his harp.
Isn't it romantic ? ;)


Hmmm, ;) this shows how you don't know me well (and never heard me sing):

Posted Image

Tone deafness:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Tone_deafness
is a diminutive of my specific competence on the musical field, singing off key, when describing my attitude, means "singing WAY off key".

The good thing is that, should I ever sing/play music by a campfire in the savanna, you can sleep safely (if you actually manage to do it ;)) as no predators (nor any other kind of wildlife) will ever come within hearing distance.

:lol:

jaclaz

#9 joakim

joakim

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 912 posts
  • Location:Bergen
  •  
    Norway

Posted 28 June 2009 - 02:32 PM

It's all a question of mathematics, and the particular mathematical language and conventions you use.


Accounting for alternatives when formulating the equation gives:
.Net application(can be programmed in alternative language) = BLOAT
.Net application(can NOT be programmed in alternative language) = NOT BLOAT
So assuming .Net is bloat, one will by definition have acknowledged the assumption that everything possible in .Net is also possible in alternative language.Comparing two sophisticated backup solutions from Symantec and StorageCraft, we see them capable of the same, with the exception of one being bloat and the other not.

Is the app of this thread crap? No

Is the app of this thread bloat? Yes, if it can be written in different language.

Joakim

#10 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 28 June 2009 - 02:58 PM

Sorry joakim, but since any app can always be written in another language. .Net is always bloat.

:lol:

#11 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:08 PM

Is process-hacker available in a different language ?
No ? - so this .net=bloat discussion maybe moot.
:lol:

#12 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

Is the app of this thread crap? No

Is the app of this thread bloat? Yes, if it can be written in different language.


Perfect. ;)

Out of the blue, and for no particular reason (if not that of proving a point ;)), try this smallish filemanager, to have an idea of what can fit in 164,352 bytes:
http://www.quickerso...winexplorer.htm

;)

jaclaz

P.S.:
@sanbarrow
more on topic, and JFYI check this one:
http://www.ghostsecurity.com/procx/

56.320 bytes, do you think reasonable that the (several :lol:) added features of Process Hacker actually need several tens of megabytes for the .net install?

#13 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10544 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:22 PM

Sorry joakim, but since any app can always be written in another language. .Net is always bloat.

It's all a question of mathematics, and the particular mathematical language and conventions you use.

Modus Ponens

A = Process Explorer
B = .NET
C = BLOAT

If A then B
B implies C
Therefore A implies C

:lol:

#14 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 28 June 2009 - 04:24 PM

P.S.:
@sanbarrow
more on topic, and JFYI check this one:
http://www.ghostsecurity.com/procx/

56.320 bytes, do you think reasonable that the (several smile.gif) added features of Process Hacker actually need several tens of megabytes for the .net install?


Nice - but its like comparing a bicycle with a Harley.
Also I guess no one would install dotnet just for this single tool - so your question is a bit unfair.

#15 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:29 PM

Also I guess no one would install dotnet just for this single tool - so your question is a bit unfair.

Not really, as not few would actually have to do this. ;)

:lol:

#16 sanbarrow

sanbarrow

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Germany - Sauerland

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:26 PM

Ok - lesson learned.
Don't post anything .NET related at boot-land. You can as well stick a pole into a beehive :lol:

#17 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:09 AM

Nobody complains about the size of the Java runtime. That's not exactly small - 80mb installed.

#18 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10544 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 June 2009 - 08:57 AM

Yes, very true.

Guess my only (personal) complaint about .NET is that it doesn't make life anywhere easy for those trying to run .NET apps under other OS's whereas Java won't be so picky and be quite flexible.

People usually talk about Mono as alternative but I've never even seen it working for anything good.

--------

If the older compilers create good and small sized binaries that work from win95 all the way up to win7, then what would be advantage brought by .NET?

Or maybe we can split this question onto a new topic so that one can iterate through the advantages and disadvantages of each platform?

If the reasons to use .Net are really good then I wouldn't mind learning more about it.

:lol:

#19 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:56 AM

Nobody complains about the size of the Java runtime. That's not exactly small - 80mb installed.

I do! It's big and slow and the worst language, i ever had the misfortune to have to work with.

Java, just like .Net, will never get a foot on my computer.

:lol:

#20 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:31 PM

The advantages with .NET is that it provides a very powerful programming api that is common across all .NET languages. It also provides several new and very powerful features - WPF, WCF, WWF. Probably more as well.

Its also cool that you can take one exe and on a 32 bit os it runs in 32 bit mode and on a 64 bit os it runs in 64 bit mode assuming when its compiled its compiled to target any cpu.

.NET is included with Vista / Win7 so no need to download it anymore.

In the business world writing applications in .NET seems mandatory. The company I work for lost several huge deals because our application was VB6 / COM / VB script based . Its not anymore - we recoded to VB.NET / C# and converted the gui to WPF. MS produce an excellent GUI designer tool called Blend for WPF. Of course its not exactly cheap.

MS VS2010 is WPF based.

ALso if you want to work as a programmer in a business environment C# / VB.NET skills are very useful skills to have.

#21 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:31 PM

Luckily i don't have to follow the trends of some marketing 'experts' anymore.
Last one was, that everything had to be Java to be cool. What a nonsense!

:lol:

#22 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:47 PM

Nice - but its like comparing a bicycle with a Harley.
Also I guess no one would install dotnet just for this single tool - so your question is a bit unfair.


Well, they both have two wheels. ;)

And of course what I posted is an over-simplification of the problem at hand.

I have actually nothing against .net framework in itself, and it's use may be justified to write "complex" "multi-inter-collaborative-whatever" kind of very complex apps, but notwithstanding the simple fact that nowadays bytes are dirt cheap, I still value each single one of them as I was used to when we did them one by one, using our bare hands:
http://www.boot-land...?...ic=1908&hl=
and if something can be done in a simple way, it should be done in a simple way:

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.



From another point of view, if even the actual makers of the .net framework felt the need to create the "compact .net Framework"
http://msdn.microsof...y/f44bbwa1.aspx
it MUST mean that the actual "full" one is not much so.

When you find out that:
http://msdn.microsof...y/2weec7k5.aspx

Differences Between the .NET Compact Framework and the .NET Framework

.....
The .NET Compact Framework is a subset of the full .NET Framework. It implements approximately 30 percent of the full .NET Framework class library and also contains features and classes that are specific to mobile and embedded development.
....
Size

The .NET Compact Framework is 8 percent the size of the full .NET Framework redistributable package. The size on disk is 50 percent smaller because of Windows Embedded CE file system compression.
.....


it would seem only logical that if 30%=8%, 70% should be at a first, rough approximation =8%*2,333=18,666%.
Now, 8%+18,666%=÷27%:
WHAT THE HECK is using the remaing 73%? :lol:

....and the answer cannot be but .... BLOAT. ;)

I would be curious to find out how much in percentage of the .net framework is actually used by "simple" apps, and more generally how much "generic" dll depencies of programs are actually "needed" or are simply due to the lazyness of the programmer. ;)

;)

jaclaz




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users