On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:06:35PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> > I opened a bug in bugzilla per Guy Harris' request. If I remember
> > correctly it is bug number 1463. I was under the impression that
> > someone on the development team would be assigned and write the
> > dissector for me.
>
Mike Duigou wrote:
> The enclosed patch corrects a problem where jxta elements were being
> added to the protocol tree for segments that did not contain complete
> jxta frames. This patch ensures that the jxta proto elements are only
> added those the segments that end a complete, assembled jxta
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:40:05PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
>
> > We're still compiling epan/dissectors with a ton of warnings from
> > auto-generated dissectors on Unix.
>
> How many of them are coming from asn2wrs-generated dissectors?
>
>
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:36:35PM -0700, Donald White wrote:
> In resolving this problem, I developed a partial RFC 2508 dissector
> which I added to packet-ppp.c. The code is attached.
> Thus, I submit it to the list in its current state. I cannot even
> provide the capture from which I wor
On Apr 2, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> We're still compiling epan/dissectors with a ton of warnings from
> auto-generated dissectors on Unix.
How many of them are coming from asn2wrs-generated dissectors?
asn2wrs is, for some reason, generating a lot of dissect_ functions
that ar
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 05:01:06PM +0200, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> I made it partly for the Unix side. (Makefile.common and Makefile.am
> affected).
> The Makefile is, in fact, building now four libraries :
> - asn dissectors : libasndissectors.la
> - pidl dissectors : libpidldissectors.la
> - no
On Apr 2, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
> 3. A question for the wlancap dissector: The SSI-type seems to have
> wrong endian,
What type of AirPort adapter do you have?
I think at least some of them are using (yay!) radiotap headers rather
than AVS headers, although some older ones
On 4/3/07, Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=21303
> >
> > User: lego
> > Date: 2007/04/02 10:17 PM
> >
> > Log:
> > There are odd packet records in k15 generated file
On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=21303
>
> User: lego
> Date: 2007/04/02 10:17 PM
>
> Log:
> There are odd packet records in k15 generated files where the
> interface record does not match any given one.
>
>
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Bill Fassler wrote:
> I opened a bug in bugzilla per Guy Harris' request. If I remember
> correctly it is bug number 1463. I was under the impression that
> someone on the development team would be assigned and write the
> dissector for me.
Wireshark isn't run
I opened a bug in bugzilla per Guy Harris' request. If I remember correctly it
is bug number 1463. I was under the impression that someone on the development
team would be assigned and write the dissector for me. It is a back burner
project for me here, so if I had to write it, I would most l
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> You are right. Maybe you can add yet another prefs flag that says
> Ignore the protection bit with IV and change the existing one to
> Ignore the protection bit without IV?
Or make it a three-way option.
___
Wireshark-dev mailing li
Hi Ulf
Ulf Lamping schrieb:
> Hi Gerhard!
>
> Sorry, that I didn't respond, but I'm currently pretty busy in another
> project :-(
>
np
> Some things I've noticed while doing a quick view:
>
> a lot of the code seems to be autogenerated (as the comments suggest)
> It might make sense to includ
Gerhard Gappmeier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> because I got no feedback on my last submit
> I'm trying it again now.
>
> I attached the new protocol dissector as follows:
> 1.) The patch for the makefile changes
> 2.) The new sources are in the attached zip file. (renamed to zip_ to
> avoid mail filtering)
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
> I am capturing on Mac OS 10.4.9 with the latest wireshark svn on the
> wireless device wlt1.
> 3. A question for the wlancap dissector: The SSI-type seems to have
> wrong endian, and the SSI-signal has a negative value. Should
Thanks Steve,
I'll see if I cannot root cause this myself with the help of a debugger and a
liberal sprinkling of g_print statements. I'll go the next step if I get
stuck.
Cheers
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Fisher
Sent: Satur
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:51:40PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
> > IIRC, that is configureable as well. Ignore the protection bit.
>
> This does not work as expected, because dissection of the "WEP
> parameters" are omitted and the dissection of LLC starts too early.
You are right. Maybe you c
Gerald Combs wrote:
> Newer versions of Visual C++ provide better overrun protection. Visual
> C++ 6.0 is also past the end of its supported life cycle:
> http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3003
>
> Gerhard Gappmeier wrote:
>> Hello Gerald,
>>
>> is there a reason to switch?
>> If you mea
Den 2. apr. 2007 kl. 17.18 skrev Joerg Mayer:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
>> 2. When connected to a wep encrypted network the data package is
>> marked as protected but the data part is not encrypted and the
>> content is not dissected. Is this be because the
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
> 1. When connected to an open network all packages have 4 trailing
> bytes which is not recognized correctly as a "tagged parameter", and
> the packet is tagged malformed. Is this some sort of ICV for
> unprotected packages? S
Newer versions of Visual C++ provide better overrun protection. Visual
C++ 6.0 is also past the end of its supported life cycle:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3003
Gerhard Gappmeier wrote:
> Hello Gerald,
>
> is there a reason to switch?
> If you mean just the installer then I think
This is a repost! Please consider this patch for Bug 1377.
Regards, Peter
2007/3/30, Peter Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/3/30, Jeff Morriss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> Peter Johansson wrote:
> > I compiled Wireshark with HAVE_AIRPDCAP by mistake (since I do not
> > have AirPcap)
Hi.
I have some questions about the ieee 802.11 dissector (and the
wlancap dissector).
I am capturing on Mac OS 10.4.9 with the latest wireshark svn on the
wireless device wlt1.
1. When connected to an open network all packages have 4 trailing
bytes which is not recognized correctly as a
Hi all,
This is a dissector for the Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) defined
in chapter 6 of the IEC 62439.
PRP uses two independent networks in parallel and allows redundancy
without switchovers.
The protocol is sending Mac multicast messages with Ethertype 0x88fb. In
addition to that it a
Hi,
In fact, It seem to be the call to "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK for
Windows Server 2003 R2\SetEnv.Cmd" which change my paths.
* Look at the result after the call to vcvars32.bat :
C:\wireshark>call "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
8\VC\bin\vcvars32.bat"
C:\wireshark>"
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
>> The official Windows installers are still built using Visual Studio 6.0.
>> I'd like to switch over to Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition before the
>> next release. Is there any reason not to do this?
>>
> Hi Gerald!
>
> I like the idea to switch to M
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Hi List!
>
> I would like to say a big THANK YOU to all the developers involved in
> the "virtual warning fix" party of recent days!
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Graham Bloice wrote:
>> CANDIA, Fabrice wrote:
>>
>>> The nmake used is C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK for Windows
>>> Server 2003 R2\Bin and not the directory mentioned in the developper's
>>> guide (Visual studio dir). Is it normal ?
>>>
>>>
>> The paths sh
Hello Gerald,
is there a reason to switch?
If you mean just the installer then I think it's ok.
But developing is much better with VC6, because it's much faster and
more stable.
As long as you don't need .Net there is nor real reason to switch in my
opinion.
The .Net Studio is just annoying.
Als
29 matches
Mail list logo
