Thanks. I don't know that GTK 2 and 3 co-exist. When the note came on the
screen, I thought I need to remove the newer one as with the case with some
software before installing the older versions.
However, the command works, there is no need for me to install gtk2. :)
Thanks,
MohanaSai Cherukuri
oun...@wireshark.org
[mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Mohana Sai
Sent: den 14 maj 2013 06:15
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] GSoC 2013 Project Proposal for Root permissions in
wireshark
Is there a way to avoid downgrading GTK+ on ubuntu 1
Is there a way to avoid downgrading GTK+ on ubuntu 12.04 before building
wireshark?
Thanks,
MohanaSai Cherukuri
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscrib
While using privilege separation on linux systems,we can make the dumpcap
an IPC service configured to run as root or system-started daemon running
as root, the dumpcap can receive commands via IPC channels and will be held
responsible for ensuring only right users are allowed to perform the
comman
> Most systems running Wireshark aren't Linux systems.
Thanks. As in the ideas page the statement read " a way to capture
packets on Linux and OS X" , only linux came to my mind.
> BTW, TShark and Wireshark currently communicate with dumpcap using an,
> err, umm, pipe
>
Currenlty in deb
On May 1, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Mohana Sai wrote:
> Sorry for not being specific in the previous mail.
>
> I was thinking about adding ACL to dumpcap file.
I.e., set an ACL limiting who is allowed to execute it?
Do *ALL* file systems on which dumpcap might reside support ACLs?
> And if many syst
Sorry for not being specific in the previous mail.
I was thinking about adding ACL to dumpcap file.
And if many systems don't have D-Bus by default, we can use some IPC which
is very common in linux systems (unix pipes came to mind, but not sure if
it is supported in all linux systems and I read
On May 1, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Mohana Sai wrote:
> I am little confused about this project. What requirements the project
> doesn't meet if we use any of these 2 methods
>
> By simply adding ACL?
Adding an ACL to what?
> By separating the code in to privileged part and unprivileged part and us
I am little confused about this project. What requirements the project
doesn't meet if we use any of these 2 methods
By simply adding ACL?
By separating the code in to privileged part and unprivileged part and
using DBus to communicate the privileged part with unprivileged one ?
Regards,
MohanaSa
On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> One of the problems with this approach is that new, inaccessbile bpf
> devices can be created at any time.
Ultimately, that'a deficiency of OS X - it *should* use cloning BPF devices.
On 4/28/13 12:02 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Surbhi Jain wrote:
>
>> When we install WIRESHARK or most of the softwares on any distro, window
>> prompts up asking for root password. When the installation of the software
>> starts, can't we run a script which will all
On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Surbhi Jain wrote:
> When we install WIRESHARK or most of the softwares on any distro, window
> prompts up asking for root password. When the installation of the software
> starts, can't we run a script which will allow the logged in user or
> third-party user to
Sir
I got your point regarding the security as it depends on wired or wireless
network or further the internal network design of an organisation and the
WEP/WPA security of their network.
When we install WIRESHARK or most of the softwares on any distro, window
prompts up asking for root password.
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Surbhi Jain wrote:
> Would it mean that end user can also capture traffic which won't belong to
> him or if he is not the owner of the packet? Security has no concern for
> capturing packets?
If somebody's concerned about capturing "third-party" traffic not being
Would it mean that end user can also capture traffic which won't belong to
him or if he is not the owner of the packet? Security has no concern for
capturing packets?
Root permissions are therefore OS dependent? Am I right?
Or are we supposed to edit the dumpcap file.
Surbhi Jain
3rd year , Compu
On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Surbhi Jain wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A normal user must have the permissions to capture and view the packet info.
> till layer 5 if that belongs to his request from server.
> He can be able to save a packet, to delete a packet, to edit a packet and
> sent it back to t
On 04/24/2013 10:24 AM, Surbhi Jain wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A normal user must have the permissions to capture and view the packet
> info. till layer 5 if that belongs to his request from server. He can be
> able to save a packet, to delete a packet, to edit a packet and sent it
> back to the server.
Hi all,
A normal user must have the permissions to capture and view the packet
info. till layer 5 if that belongs to his request from server. He can be
able to save a packet, to delete a packet, to edit a packet and sent it
back to the server.
Packet contains the info for the identification of th
Hi all,
I came across the project "Root permissions" in wireshark. i downloaded
wireshark on my ubuntu PC in order to capture the packets. I was unable to
select any interface as I was not logged in as root. The permissions of
file /usr/bin/dumpcap needs to be changed as 775 or 777 in order to vie
19 matches
Mail list logo
