The Portable Freeware Collection Forums

Program: Process Hacker
Website: http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/
Download link: http://sourceforge.net/projects/process ... sshacker2/
Description: Process Hacker is a feature-packed tool for manipulating processes and services on your computer.
Stealth: yes, as long as it's run as follows: Process Hacker.exe -settings "settingsfile" (where "settingsfile" is the path to the settings file)


Added to the database: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1934
Vote Now!

does it still rely on .net?

anyways I like it, but i went back to process explorer because i removed .net for a while

-.- wrote:does it still rely on .net?

Not since version 2.0.

This is real cool! Everything I need for process/service management under one roof. Thanks!

I am going to run it in place of Process Explorer for awhile...

ProcessHacker2 is written into CurrentControlSet in the registry.

Andrew Lee wrote:This is real cool! Everything I need for process/service management under one roof. Thanks!

I am going to run it in place of Process Explorer for awhile...

I'm doing the same thing, actually, since Process Hacker is a lot lighter than Process Explorer (and Process Hacker doesn't write to the Registry, unlike Process Explorer). PH's FOSS license is a big bonus, too.
PE has a lot more power than PH, though, so I'll probably go back at some point.

infimum wrote:ProcessHacker2 is written into CurrentControlSet in the registry.

I've got a couple of questions, if you don't mind.
#1: Are you sure? I'm not seeing anything like that on my system (XP Home SP3)
#2: What OS are you using?
#3: Are you using a 32-bit or 64-bit OS?
#4: Did you select the "Enable Kernel-Mode Driver" option in Process Hacker? (I believe it's selected by default, fyi)
#5: Can you give me the exact location of the Registry key(s) you're talking about?

Thanks!

computerfreaker wrote: #1: Are you sure? I'm not seeing anything like that on my system (XP Home SP3)
#2: What OS are you using?
#3: Are you using a 32-bit or 64-bit OS?
#4: Did you select the "Enable Kernel-Mode Driver" option in Process Hacker? (I believe it's selected by default, fyi)
#5: Can you give me the exact location of the Registry key(s) you're talking about?

23. Win7 32bit.
4. It's on by default.
5. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services

infimum wrote:

computerfreaker wrote: #1: Are you sure? I'm not seeing anything like that on my system (XP Home SP3)
#2: What OS are you using?
#3: Are you using a 32-bit or 64-bit OS?
#4: Did you select the "Enable Kernel-Mode Driver" option in Process Hacker? (I believe it's selected by default, fyi)
#5: Can you give me the exact location of the Registry key(s) you're talking about?

23. Win7 32bit.
4. It's on by default.
5. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services

Hmm. I know Process Hacker has some trouble with 64-bit systems, but I haven't seen anything related to Win7. I'm also not seeing the Registry keys you're talking about, so it's possible this is a Win7 thing.
Do the Registry keys go away if you uncheck the "Enable Kernel-Mode Driver" option?

Also, there are leftovers in the registry.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_KPROCESSHACKER

I don't think those go away unless you change the access rights and manually delete the entries. You know, it comes with the driver kprocesshacker.sys. I think I am done with messing with this program

yup, infimum is correct. I had a similar issue with Hijack Hunter... see viewtopic.php?p=25730#p25730

infimum wrote:Also, there are leftovers in the registry.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_KPROCESSHACKER

I can confirm that. Deleting KProcessHacker.sys should take care of that problem, as well as the other one you mentioned.

infimum wrote: I don't think those go away unless you change the access rights and manually delete the entries. You know, it comes with the driver kprocesshacker.sys.

Delete the driver; that will probably disable some of the more advanced features, but it may be worth the portability gain.

infimum wrote:I think I am done with messing with this program

I guess I can understand that. I'll be sticking with it, though.

computerfreaker wrote: I guess I can understand that. I'll be sticking with it, though.

Please modify the database entry so that people can avoid the registry trouble that I went through.

infimum wrote:Please modify the database entry so that people can avoid the registry trouble that I went through.

Done, thanks. Do you think that's acceptable?

Acceptable as portable? Admin likes it and there are lot in the database that are not so "stealth."

infimum wrote:Acceptable as portable? Admin likes it and there are lot in the database that are not so "stealth."

I was actually referring to the database entry - is it acceptable in terms of telling users how to keep things as portable as possible - but asking about the acceptability of Process Hacker is probably a good idea, too.
Personally, I agree with you - there are a lot of other apps in the database that are nearly portable but leave something in the Registry, so Process Hacker should be OK. Still, I know there are a lot of purists (myself usually included) who won't use a non-stealth app if an equivalent stealth one is available.