Maynard, Chris schrieb:
> When I ran wireshark to test it, one thing I noticed that I hadn't
> before is that when I did a File -> Open, then dragged the dialog window
> across the main page, the main page was corrupted with window edges of
> the dragged FileOpen dialog. I don't recall that happen
FYI, I've read Richard's reply.
Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
> Insecurity people panic... security people take action...
Possibly a poor choice of words. You can't have dealt with the way a
large organisation reacts to stress. Panic preceeds action because panic
is easy and action is not. The ones who
Thank you, Guy. That was it.
When I followed the tutorial, I didn't realize value_string must be
terminated by an end-of-line entry. I thought it was just another valid
entry in the example.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Harris
Sent
Chih Wang schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a custom dissector in plugin form originally developed on Linux
> (Ubuntu on x86). Wireshark ran fine on the system with the plugin.
>
> The code was moved to a Windows XP box verbatim. After setting up the
> build environment on the box, I was able to bui
On Aug 6, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Chih Wang wrote:
> static const value_string msgtypenames[] = {
> { 0x10, "Type 16" },
> { 0x01, "Type 1" },
> { 0x03, "Type 3" },
> { 0x05, "Type 5"}
> };
A value_string array *must* be terminated with an end-of-list entry:
Hi all,
I have a custom dissector in plugin form originally developed on Linux
(Ubuntu on x86). Wireshark ran fine on the system with the plugin.
The code was moved to a Windows XP box verbatim. After setting up the
build environment on the box, I was able to build Wireshark and the
plugin.
How
I vote for:
> 2) Change the code to only identify the weak keys, but not use it
>to decrypt the SSL traffic (would this also be CPU intensive?)
I believe this is not CPU intensive.
I'm certainly against adding the brute-forcing functionality, for the
reasons Andrew mentioned.
Luis EG Onta
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:17:12 +0200, Sake Blok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May I have your votes please? ;-)
>
> 1) Don't include the code at all
> 2) Change the code to only identify the weak keys, but not use it
>to decrypt the SSL traffic (would this also be CPU intensive?)
> 3) Add the code
Hi,
Still looking for feedback on getting bug 2373
(https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2373) checked in.
No rush but some more advice on whats required to get this checked in
would be appreciated.
Thank you.
___
Wireshark-dev mailing
Hello Ronnie,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 06:45:47AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +1 -1 Makefile.common Modified
> +3571 -79 packet-dcerpc-dnsserver.cModified
> +132 -36 packet-dcerpc-dnsserver.hModified
Looks like you also replaced the packet-dcerpc-dnsserver
Insecurity people panic... security people take action...
Security people that ban a program that finds/exploits a hole are not
security people... security people makes sure a well known a very
impacting vulnerabiliy is taken away.
I think that letting users to know that e.g. their Bank's website
Sake Blok wrote:
> May I have your votes please? ;-)
>
> 1) Don't include the code at all
There are enough weak key identifiers out there without burdening
Wireshark with a CPU intensive test for a one off problem. The next time
someone finds a weakness it is bound to be a different problem need
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:20:46AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:44 +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
> > I don't agree with you here. For the current decrypt functions of
> > Wireshark, the user add specific additional knowledge for *their*
> > setup. The information needed is private
hello,
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:44 +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
> I don't agree with you here. For the current decrypt functions of
> Wireshark, the user add specific additional knowledge for *their*
> setup. The information needed is private and only available to
> legitimate administrators of the sys
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:12:14AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 20:28 +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
> > Wireshark has a good
> > reputation as a network analysis tool. Which of course means it can be
> > used for less honest purposes as well, but putting code in to deliberately
> > b
hello,
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 20:28 +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
> Wireshark has a good
> reputation as a network analysis tool. Which of course means it can be
> used for less honest purposes as well, but putting code in to deliberately
> break security based on a weakness in the protocol crosses the l
16 matches
Mail list logo
