I just installed Vista on my 32 bit Intel puter and I did a quick search to see if Protowall was compatible with Vista. I found a reference that it was so I went ahead and installed it. The driver seemed to install OK manually. Then I tried to run Protowall and it comes up OK, but when I select my network adapter the program immediately crashes. This is the latest version of Protowall. Is it supposed to work with Vista?

Thanks.

PW should not be compatible with Vista as the version of NDIS changed from 5 to 6. Now, 6 has backward compatibility with 5 but everyone so far has failed trying to load it.

I find it very interesting that it appeared to install properly.

Might have to look into it a bit further, can you post details of your NiC + Driver version and the exact version of windows please?

Necro

I installed Protowall 2.01 (build 9) on Vista RC 2 Evaluation Copy (build 5744).

The computer I put it on has a Netgear FA311/312 PCI Adapter. Driver version is 5.00.117.0

I installed the driver manually. Only got 2 'logo testing' warnings!

After a restart it works fine, except when it's blocking it doesn't log to video. Same goes for granted packets.

This is the release candidate though. I don't know how protowall would fare for the 'final' version of vista.

keep in mind vista uses ipv6 by default!! I do not thik protowall is going to work. You can try to go and uncheck IPv6 and see if protowall will start logging ipv4 ip addresses but, I doubt it.

There are no ipv6 lists for protowall to block.

firstaid

Try disabling ipv6, very interesting. ALthough at best it is only ever going to be hit and miss i think.

My NIC is a D-Link AirPlus Xtreme G DWL-G132 Wireless USB Adapter (rev. A) with D-Link driver version 1.0.1.41 dated 10/6/2004.

Also take a look at this :

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community...1005.mspx#EGAAC

Disabling IPv6
Unlike Windows XP, IPv6 in Windows Vista and Windows Server “Longhorn” cannot be uninstalled. To disable IPv6 on a specific connection, you can do the following:

• In the Network Connections folder, obtain properties of the connection and clear the check box next to the Internet Protocol version 6 (TCP/IPv6) component in the list under This connection uses the following items. This method disables IPv6 on your LAN interfaces and connections, but does not disable IPv6 on tunnel interfaces or the IPv6 loopback interface.


To selectively disable Pv6 components and configure behaviors for IPv6 in Windows Vista, create and configure the following registry value (DWORD type):

• HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\tcpip6\Parameters\DisabledComponents

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip6\Parameters]
"DisabledComponents"=dword:000000ff



DisabledComponents is set to 0 by default.

The DisabledComponents registry value is a bit mask that controls the following series of flags, starting with the low order bit (Bit 0):

• Bit 0 Set to 1 to disable all IPv6 tunnel interfaces, including ISATAP, 6to4, and Teredo tunnels. Default value is 0.

• Bit 1 Set to 1 to disable all 6to4-based interfaces. Default value is 0.

• Bit 2 Set to 1 to disable all ISATAP-based interfaces. Default value is 0.

• Bit 3 Set to 1 to disable all Teredo-based interfaces. Default value is 0.

• Bit 4 Set to 1 to disable IPv6 over all non-tunnel interfaces, including LAN interfaces and Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)-based interfaces. Default value is 0.

• Bit 5 Set to 1 to modify the default prefix policy table to prefer IPv4 to IPv6 when attempting connections. Default value is 0. For more information about the prefix policy table, see Source and Destination Address Selection for IPv6, the February 2006 The Cable Guy article.


To determine the value of DisabledComponents for a specific set of bits, construct a binary number consisting of the bits and their values in their correct position and convert the resulting number to hexadecimal. For example, if you want to disable 6to4 interfaces, disable Teredo interfaces, and prefer IPv4 to IPv6, you would construct the following binary number: 101010. When converted to hexadecimal, the value of DisabledComponents is 0x2A.

The following table lists some common configuration combinations and the corresponding value of DisabledComponents.

Configuration combination DisabledComponents value
Disable all tunnel interfaces
0x1

Disable 6to4
0x2

Disable ISATAP
0x4

Disable Teredo
0x8

Disable Teredo and 6to4
0xA

Disable all LAN and PPP interfaces
0x10

Disable all LAN, PPP, and tunnel interfaces
0x11

Prefer IPv4 over IPv6
0x20

Disable IPv6 over all interfaces and prefer IPv4 to IPv6
0xFF


You must restart the computer for the changes to the DisabledComponents registry value to take effect.



I would kill ipv6 asap

firstaid

I can confirm this is working on Vista x86 after disabling IPv6 via these instructions and manually installing the Protowall driver. I use PG2 (which will install, but not work in Vista) to download the latest lists, export them to .p2p format wihch can then be loaded into Protowall. Logging doesn't seem to work, but the driver blocks properly!

Hi... i would like know iy you have project to develop a new protowall version, support VISTA and IPV6 ?

I also attemtped installation under Vista. No way. I went online and found some interesting work arounds for some Vista issues, ie: The UAC and Microsofts ownership of files on MY computer. The UAC can be disabled in the Security Policies (Vista does not like this and gives you a big red X shield in the taskbar, but who cares!) Also, I found a piece of software that adds an OWN option in the folders when you right click. It allows you to take ownership of any folder or files on your computer, so you can work with them. Using these tools and following the instructions above to disable the IPv6, I was able to get PW to install and I thought, work. When I tested it the first time it blocked most websites I tried to get into, although it did not log anything, video or logfile. This morning I started PW, which started fine, then started my p2p software and started downloading. At one point I had to get into a .mil site (I am in the military). So I did, then realized that PW was still running but not blocking anything. I think you are right about hit or miss. I can't trust that it will be blocking properly. So, when are we going to see a Vista compatible version?

Any news on this?

If you are asking me, no. Yours is the only response. I tried using it again and this time it seemed to be blocking. Pretty good, too. I wasn't even getting graphics in my e-mail. I think Necromancer was correct in saying that it probably would be hit or miss.

Did we misunderstand us?

I´ll be asking for a Vista compatible Driverversion.

Yes, we did. You were not specific about what you were asking about. I am waiting for the same response you are.

Necromancer, Is there a Vista compatible version in the works?

yes i would like to know if there is a version for vista.

I hope all can exscuse the fact that I'm no registry expert and have little exp. there in with registry editing which is in turn why I've elected to post a reply. My question is in order to disable all ipv6 interfaces and prefer ipv4 over ipv6 should the DisabledComponents DWord value be 0x2A or 0xFF. Also I only can enter these hex. values via a paste command and cannot enter them via keying in the values. I did however attempt to enter the value 101010 in decimal but when regedit converts it to hex the value is not any of the suggested hex. values. Also I use an older router which I figure is only ipv4 compliant is this even an issue in the sense of security in regards to ipv6 if feature is not properly disabled. Router model: BEFSR41. None the less I have such as the above users in this post been able to get protowall installed with the latest blocklist and is functioning similarly with no log feature but does block consistantly. Thanks for all who have spent time in addressing this concern.

Nice work guys, there must be enough backwards compatibility in the NDIS driver that it works. When I said it might be inconsistant I meant install and working NOT blocking. If you have ipv6 disabled (the PW driver is NOT ipv6 compatible) then if it installs and runs it should block without fail. If it is not blocking a site check your list/s.

Necro

I'm just curious in regards to the disabling ipv6 when I made the registry changes listed above the result did not seem consistant with the directions. I've also managed to be aware of a service in Vista if disabled will disable the ipv6 and prefer the ipv4. If you or someone would please clarify in respects to the above reg. changes whih are nessacary or an easier way to prefer the ipv4 over ipv6 that would be great. Thanks

is there any progress in making Protowall run safely under Vista?

Not yet Olop01

I will talk with Necro and see what he has been up to if I can next time he pops around.

I believe the service talked about above is the "IP Helper" service. It is the one that enables an IPV4 computer to connect to an IPV6 network. I have shut this off, and disabled it by creating the DisabledComponents key with FF as the value in hex. This should shut off all IPV6 on the computer. IPCONFIG /ALL doesn't even list an ipv6 ip, incidentally it also appears to have gotten rid of half of the extra crap that IPCONFIG /ALL would bring up, virtual network cards and such that vista was for some reason wanting to list there. Now it's showing only the things that were showing with Windows XP + SP2. I am also using µtorrent standalone with the ipfilter.dat stored in the same folder as µtorrent.exe and settings.dat to make µtorrent portable. It appears to be logging blocked ip's correctly. One can never be entirely sure, but I'm going to give it a try for a month or so and see what comes up.

I moved over to Vista a couple months ago and finally got around to loading (or trying to) Protowall. I have disabled ipv6 as described in this thread, installed Protowall with a manual install of the driver, etc.

Protowall executes and 'appears' normal. As others have indicated, it does not log blocked/granted IPs, only logs its own start/stops. But also in my case, it does not block anything. I have the most up to date list from BLM and I can go straight to the RIAA or MPAA sites as if it were not there.

Taking to heart the 'hit or miss' install comment, I have uninstalled (restarted), reinstalled several times. Always the same results. Any additional thoughts/comments/ideas would be welcomed.


EDITED: Ok, it is indeed hit and miss on the install. Uninstalled/installed a couple more times and now it is blocking. But as others report, still no loggong

I am not sure why you fuzz so much about IPV6. It is still quite a rarity and there are only few websites and services that support it. In fact it is one of easy Vista tweaks to make vista run faster and get rid of garbage. IPV6 won't be usefull for a couple of years (except when Microsoft decides to implement it on their side and require Vista computers to run IPV6.)

IPV4 should me more than what you need nowadays.

-polo-

Anyway, I tried as instructed here to diable IPV6 in registry and then load the protowall driver... but no luck. Protowall is telling me that the driver is not loaded. Seems we have to wait for Vista compatible firewall. At this point Vista is causing as many headaches to users as to developers. It has been more than 1 year since Vista release and there are still about 50% of business applications that are not compatible with Vista at all. Similar proprotion is among the consumer software except perhaps application leaders.

-polo-

Try again, it does work. As in the posts above, in Vista you need to disable ipv6 (Protowall will crash otherwise), then do a Vista restart, then install Protowall (but do a manual driver installation), restart again for good measure. Start Protowall, choose the adapter, load your IP table (I used the one generated by BLM), and you are set.

Protowall will not log in Vista (I have it set to log visually and to the log file, but only blocked IPs), but it does block. Try accessing one of the sites in the BLM list you loaded.

In my case, I had to do the procedure above about five times, either because it is hit-and-miss or because I was not doing exactly the same every time - making mistakes or who knows what, but it is working flawlessly now.

Hope this helps. Let others know if it works for you (and exactly what you are doing if not).

OK, I will try a couple of times more. I did it otherwise properly, I din't run IPv6 anyway (disabled)...

By the way - for those who can't get it running (as me) I decided there is another way and far more safe, which I can recommend anyway. You could install MS Virtual Machine and install Windows XP virtual machine on your P Vista and run the Protowall and firewall etc inside it. I think it should work. I know this sounds like taking a canon to slap a moskito.. But the reason for running virtual machine is that it provides more safety. It is not ideal, but it is safer, Especially for this kind of stuff in general.

Just an idea to try,

OK, I am completely fed up with restarting computer and adding/removing the network driver. Doesn't help. I did it like 18 times already.

I will try the virtual machine option and I will report here. Cheers.

I wonder if you could trust it? Any VM, and the firewall inside it, would be functionally irrelevant to any malware
prepared to bypass it, and we know the most advanced stuff is already well beyond that point.

Do you have an old computer? Use that as a router between yourself and the modem and you will have total,
unbreakable control over your traffic.

It is more secure as long as it is not programmed to specifically overcome bariers caused by virtual machine. Since there are still few people running VMs (in fact not that many companies as well in their IT departements), there might be less exploits so far.

I read that the security is improved particularly in 3 areas: 1) reboot and restore previous VM image (the best way to make sure the new session is clean) 2) limited things the exploit can do in VM (in fact VMs are quite stupid, MS Virtual PC can't even access USB drives and ports, unless set as share-less secure) 3) with proper setup of port forwarding you can actually mascarade the virtual PC. I don't know much about the subject but I read a couple of papers.

Virtual machines have definitively potential and we will see a surge of them in the next years.

But since I am not an expert in this area, I leave this for comments from experts.

Hi Guys,
I guess it's time for an update. Ever since my last post back in May 07, PW has been working great and seems to be blocking. Still no logging, but it is working. Every once in a while, due to starting and stopping to get into websites, it crashes and the icon disappears from the taskbar. If you try to restart it, it says it is still running. I have to go to Task Manager/Processes and end it there. Then I can restart it and it works fine again. No real complaints here, except I would like to see it logging. Glad to see the site still up.

I'm real confused by all this. The best option would be a patch, if someone can rig that up. Otherwise, would someone mind posting a clear, complete method, from start to finish, using as simple terminology as possible? I'd really appreciate it, as I have the ESA up my butt. ()

I have been enjoying PW many years but without Vista (32 and 64-bit) support I'm leaving this great product and going to test PeerGuardian...

Is protowall still being worked(?) on as it's been quite a while
since there was a new release of it. Even if there is a small group
of people that use vista 32/64 versions, those people could test
new versions of protowall to report if it works in vista or not so
that progress can be made in making a version that does work
with vista.. I am planning on switching to Vista very soon, and
since protowall is hit/miss in vista I will drop protowall as it seems
like protowall is no longer being worked on which is a shame as
those of us using vista would probably help in a vista compatible
version....

I've had PW on XP until now but with Vista (64-bit) I have no chance how to block IPs like in Protowall :-(
Before PeerGuardian installation is necessary to "Disable Driver Signature Enforcement" what will probably break overall stability so I don't want to do this. My last chance is Azureus with black list imported...

I know how you feel.. With as many people wanting a vista compatible version of protowall, you would
think that they would consider it as protowall is a great program but as it seems they're forcing us to
stay with XP if we want to continue using protowall which is unfair to those of us who has already made
the switch to vista and need a program like protowall. I hope they seriously consider it as they're forcing
us to find alternatives which might not be as good as protowall would be..

I really don't want to have to run PG2 only because it has so many reliability problems and often lets stuff slip through so I am really hoping for a 32 and 64 bit version of PW. I mean, I have heard that PG2 runs on vista x64 and I have heard reports of protowall running in 32 bit Vista but not 64 bit versions. The vast majority of new machines now run Vista and, MS is phasing out XP right now and will no longer be selling licenses for XP starting this June and will begin phasing out tech support for XP and completely cut off all support for XP starting in April 2009 so it is time for PW for Vista (yes, it may be difficult but the options are very limited ATM).

Things to keep in mind for software developers is that there is literally nothing left on the shelves but the future of 100% 64bit processors flooding the market, and the notion that Microsoft isn't changing anything in favor of XP users, with their primary focus being 64bit computing (So dont be surprised if the next version of Windows, which is due to roll out last quarter of 2009, is 64bit only!!!).

Most major software providers in the industry (graphics, audio, security) either have a 64bit version of their current release, or will be featuring 64bit version for their next release.

64bit compatibility and beyond will have to be met for any software to stay in the game. Vista+ even more so.
32bit computing is now legacy computing.

Hello, I am having problems. I have windows home edition vista new. I cannot seem to get protowall, peerguardian to work at all. Can someone please step by step help. I know it's big, but I really need to get this installe. Thank you very much. Lucy

Sorry but from what i could read in this thread, PW is not able to work with vista.
You have to use PG instead. or switch back to XP.

It's been quite a long while since Vista has been out to the masses. We NEED a protowall that will work with Vista .. and if it works with vista it should work with Windows 7. I'm using Vista Ultimate now with nary a problem .. the only blue screen I've gotten is trying to get protowall to work .. I tried the xp driver to have it fail .. and I tried the 2003 driver to have it bluescreen on me. I followed ALL the instructions to disable ipv6 before attempting this.

Bottom line ... it's time for a Vista version of protowall .. plain and simple.

PW for Vista. Pretty please.

1

+1 !! What do you need to develop a new protowall ? money ? (lol) dev team ? ^^

Sorry guys but we have no plans at all in the future for a vista version of Protowall. Not because we don't want to, but we have no one interested in working on it any further.


Yes a new dev to start working on it would certainly help.

Alternatively we could start up a Protowall donation fund towards hiring a programmer, but that probably won't be cheap.

The only thing I use / recommend for IP blocking in vista is either Outpost 2009 with Blockpost or Online Armor. Haven't tried PG2, not planning to.

thank you for giving some news about it.

If no pw for vista, maybe pw for Seven ? hahaha :joke:
It's bad news for the users but i understand you don't want working on it no more.

Maybe the sources could be published or opened ? it could be a new start for the project.

Why not open source it then if you don't have a dedicated dev team? Put it up on Souceforge.net and let ppl have a go with it.

Unfortunately there are various files used which cannot be open sourced in Protowall, otherwise we could probably do that.

We will keep looking for a Protowall dev though.