On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:23 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
> I started looking at the long options, but I thought they also needed a
> corresponding mnemonic letter as well.
No - part of the whole reason for long options is to give you an escape when
you run out of the subset of ASCII characters
ul 14, 2015 1:13 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
Hey Michael,
Are there are any mnemonic option letters available?
Would use of long options be the appropriate solution in this case?
A few years ago I had a nee
On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:27 PM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
> Command-line option sounds good, but it will probably take longer to figure
> out the option letter (how many do we have left?) than the functionality that
> does the enable/disable. Suggestions for option "letter" to use? Have we
>
ate: Monday, July 13, 2015 8:27 PM
To: "wireshark-dev@wireshark.org<mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>"
mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
Command-line option sounds good, but it will probably take l
Pascal Quantin
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 10:03 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
Le 13 juil. 2015 3:32 PM, a écrit :
>
> I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was more
> fo
-Original Message-
> From: Pascal Quantin
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 9:21 am
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
>
>
> Le 13 juil. 2015 3:03 AM, a écrit :
> >
> > With:
> >
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:32 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was more
> focused on the Wireshark (packet) context menu, where I was less inclined to
> make changes. This however seems like a more valid use case to consider.
n the tabbed dialog so users can learn it
to apply it to a (new) tshark option?
-Original Message-
From: Pascal Quantin
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 9:21 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
Le
is deactivated by default for performance reasons.
Pascal.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mmann78
> To: wireshark-dev
> Sent: Fri, Jul 10, 2015 8:45 pm
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
>
> Some more thoughts about enabling/d
into the Big Switch, but right now each serves it own purpose and can
provide specific granularity to certain use cases (usually allowing a user to
override a "default (dissection/dissector) behavior" Wireshark provides). The
current Gerrit patch is just a small step in the right direction.
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> The use case for some but not other underlying protocols would appear to be
> "traffic atop protocol X is rarely if ever mis-identified as being for
> protocol Z, so leave the heuristic on, but traffic atop protocol Y is often
> mis-identifi
rride a "default (dissection/dissector) behavior" Wireshark provides). The
current Gerrit patch is just a small step in the right direction.
-Original Message-
From: Guy Harris
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2015 3:12 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-
Den 6 jul 2015 09:12 skrev "Guy Harris" :
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> > My 2 cents:
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?
> >
> > While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most
On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>
>> "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?
>
> While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most users/IT-folks
> understand what a “Dissector” is?
That'
My 2 cents:
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?
While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most users/IT-folks
understand what a “Dissector” is? I think we’ve been conditioned to think of
that word because we look a
osed
to run on top of), so I'm not sure if its as simple as "disabling protocol
altogether" vs "disabling (all?) dissector heuristics of a protocol".
-Original Message-
From: Guy Harris
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Sent: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 11:32
On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> BTW, in case someone’s curious, attached is a screenshot of the dialog window
> tab Michael’s change adds.
>
>
"Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector"?
Should we have a single table, listing protocols, with up to two checkboxes,
one
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> I uploaded a patch to Gerrit that allows enabling/disabling of any heuristic
> dissector (https://code.wireshark.org/review/9508/).
>
> Some comments about the patch (others are welcome to add more):
> 1. Not sure how to best expres
I uploaded a patch to Gerrit that allows enabling/disabling of any heuristic
dissector (https://code.wireshark.org/review/9508/).
Some comments about the patch (others are welcome to add more):
1. Not sure how to best express the relationship between the "name" of the
heuristic dissector and i
Some thoughts:
1. There is already some code in place to have the heuristic dissector tables
displayed in a separate tab in the Enable Protocols dialog. Looks like a WIP
that was defed out (presumably until it was ready). grep HEUR_DISSECTOR_LIST
2. Because #1, I don't think the architecture
Howdy,
as part of the discussion for several recent bugs and gerrit changes to add
preference settings for various protocols to enable/disable heuristic
dissection, Michael Mann suggested we just provide a way to enabled/disable
*any* heuristic dissector (i.e., for all of them, automagically in
21 matches
Mail list logo
