hello,
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 11:17 +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
Well, if I have understood your code correctly,
Just to leave praise (or blame :-), for those who really deserve it,
this is not entirely my code, since others have contributed to the patch
(as bugzilla entry reports): Luciano Bello
Paolo Abeni wrote:
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?)
Yes. It will take near exactly the same amount of time and computation
since, in current code, the larger amount of time is spent looping on
Hi,
I noted the following warnings when building the nsi istaller. I haven't
got the time to look at it currently.
Reagrds
Anders
IntCmp $0:0 equal=onSelChange.unselect, ,
warning: unknown variable/constant {SecFileExtensions} detected,
ignoring (wireshark.nsi:1102)
SectionGetFlags:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:41AM +0100, Richard van der Hoff wrote:
Paolo Abeni wrote:
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?)
Yes. It will take near exactly the same amount of time and
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:30:25PM +0200, Sake Blok wrote:
You could leave the code in there, and have an 'identify weak keys' menu
option.
But at present I'm changing my vote to 1) Don't include the code at all.
All considering, I vote for 1) as well.
I still strongly prefer 2)
My vote goes to 1.
-martin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] performing cpu/time intensive computation
in aprotocol
My vote goes for 2) :
Wireshark is a troubleshooting tool and a vulnerable key can be source
of trouble. It would be plainly wrong not to notify of a potential
source of trouble if we can.
I wonder whether we actually need to decrypt? I think we just need to
build a hash of broken keypairs
Hi Everyone,
The display filter syntax checking (background colour red/green/amber)
seems to be broken in SVN (at least on my SVN Rev 25800 on WinXP Pro
SP2). Is this the side effect of someone's ongoing work (bug 2581
e.g.)?
For example, I am able to type tcpspace which turns the colour
green,
Hi,
I've recently built a Windows installer for a version of Wireshark 1.0.2 with a
couple of my own plugins added in. When I run setup.exe on the machine with
VS2005EE installed it installs fine and my version of Wireshark runs without
any problems. When I try to copy the setup.exe file onto
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:48:54 +0200, Ulf Lamping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maynard, Chris schrieb:
When I tried to create a Windows installer, I noticed an error. The
vcredist_x86.exe was missing from C:\wireshark-win32-libs\. I already
had it downloaded, so I just copied it to the expected
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:51:36 +, Oli Marling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I've recently built a Windows installer for a version of Wireshark 1.0.2
with a couple of my own plugins added in. When I run setup.exe on the
machine with VS2005EE installed it installs fine and my version of
Hmm, I've read the VC2008EE EULA, redist.txt and notes on MSDN that seem
to all indicate that it's ok to redistribute the vcredist_x86.exe. I'm
not 100% if it is or isn't, but:
1) The VC2008EE states in relevant part:
You may copy and distribute the object code form of code listed in
REDIST.TXT
Hi Abhik,
I've reviewed my code (bug 2581) to check whether it causes the bug you
mentioned, and I'm quite sure that it has no influence on the way display
filter syntax checking feature works.
To verify this I checked an older SVN Rev (25382) that does not have the
Filter AutoCompletion feature
Hi Bahaa,
Thanks a lot for checking. I'll open a bug report.
Regards,
Abhik.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Bahaa Naamneh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Abhik,
I've reviewed my code (bug 2581) to check whether it causes the bug you
mentioned, and I'm quite sure that it has no influence on the
14 matches
Mail list logo
