On Wednesday 09 April 2014 16:49:43 Guy Harris wrote:
> Why is that treated as a "this is encrypted" indication rather than a
> "somebody's trying to extract whatever's in the server's memory after the
> request payload" indication?
After the handshake, the record layer is encrypted, including hea
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:24:53 -0700
>From: Guy Harris
>To: Developer support list for Wireshark
>Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to print out string encoded data that
> contains nul characters?
>Message-ID: <570e5517-8137-466f-aeb1-c32cc47c1...@alum.mit.edu>
>Content-Type: t
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:16:40 -0700
>From: Guy Harris
>To: Developer support list for Wireshark
>Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Header field with scaling factor/units?
>Message-ID: <4d624ab4-5fcd-47a2-8850-39cc4e6b4...@alum.mit.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>O
The warning-turned-error (I like to compile the branches with
warnings-as-errors to catch this kind of thing) is:
CC libdissectors_la-packet-lte-rrc.lo
../../asn1/lte-rrc/packet-lte-rrc-fn.c: In function
'dissect_lte_rrc_SystemInfoListGERAN_item':
../../asn1/lte-rrc/packet-lte-rrc-fn.c
Ya, it's usable in 1.10 though it's not as efficient or featureful. It couldn't
fully replace emem at that point, but for one-off use (backporting?) it should
work just fine.
Switching it back to emem would also probably work with no ill-effects.
Whatever's easier.
Evan
> On Apr 10, 2014, at
On Apr 9, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> We might want to add syntax so that, for a field with a scale factor of 0.5,
> we might have
>
> wlan.rate = raw(22)
>
> or
>
> wlan.rate = 11
>
> (no, that was not a randomly-chosen field example :-)). Other suggestions
> for th
Le 11 avr. 2014 05:07, "Evan Huus" a écrit :
>
> Ya, it's usable in 1.10 though it's not as efficient or featureful. It
couldn't fully replace emem at that point, but for one-off use
(backporting?) it should work just fine.
>
> Switching it back to emem would also probably work with no ill-effects
