I've got it now. I knew I had to be missing something fundamental,
because if I wasn't, the whole foundation of SSL would be in jeopardy.
The pages I read talked about the client key exchange message sending
the premaster secret from the client to the server, but neglected to
mention that t
Well, remember, it's not *really* secure: Anybody with enough CPU time
can break the encryption. And, what's worse, no one[1] can prove (or
disprove) that the encryption is not breakable in much less time than is
needed with brute force.
[1] excepting those who purport that P=NP if P or N are
Hi,
Take a look at http://wiki.wireshark.org/KnownBugs/OutOfMemory
Regards
Anders
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Susan
Skickat: den 10 augusti 2007 17:51
Till: wireshark-users@wireshark.org
Ämne: [Wireshark-users] Capture Error
We are runn
Is the following intelligent dominating species that's going to evolve
in our planet after we go extint will be interested in what you
encrypted?
On 8/10/07, Jeff Morriss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, remember, it's not *really* secure: Anybody with enough CPU time
> can break the encrypti
We are running Wireshark 99.6 to capture traffic leading up
to a problem situation. Twice now it has failed while
capturing and generates a pop-up box saying something like
"We're sorry... wireshark has encountered an error" and
capture stops. When you click "OK" on the error box, the
product
Ack.
But still I think that given the will and the power there are far
better mechanisms to obtain information than cracking encryption (like
bribery or extortion).
On 8/10/07, Jeff Morriss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nothing I've encrypted would be of interest, but if you're hiding from
> the
Full ack.
Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
> Ack.
> But still I think that given the will and the power there are far
> better mechanisms to obtain information than cracking encryption (like
> bribery or extortion).
>
> On 8/10/07, Jeff Morriss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nothing I've encrypted would be
The first format (C-Like) is the current one, the "second" format was
the original (dropped) one.
In the odd story of the accidental development of MATE this format was
written for loading and testing an ISUP/H323/SIP only module, it came
to my view that the matching mechanism was versatile enough
Nothing I've encrypted would be of interest, but if you're hiding from
the all-seeing all-powerful NSA, maybe you'd care. [1,000 CPU years
seems like a long time until you've got 10,000 CPUs working on the
problem. 10,000 CPUs used to seem improbable but how many servers do
they say Google h
If you are eavesdropping an ssl session you are not supposed to know
the shared secret between the client and the server in order to avoid
you decrypting what goes through
client and server. The "not allowing eavsdropers" to see the clear
text exchange between client and server happens to be the re
Hi,
it is possible to decrypt the session if you retrieve somehow from client the
master secret and some addtional information.
There is not whole mechanism for it in the Wireshark now but there is function
ssl_set_master_secret(). If you pass all necessary information to this function
it can
Fortunately for them (hum!) there are the rainbow tables ... compute
once, always crack
Regards,
Sebastien Tandel
On Aug 10, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Full ack.
Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
Ack.
But still I think that given the will and the power there are far
better mechanisms to
Derek Shinaberry wrote:
> Can someone help me understand why you must have the server's private
> key in order to be able to decrypt the session between the client and
> the server? It seems to me that if the server and client can conduct
> the session without the client ever knowing the ser
Hi,
I started to use MATE to link packets to each other in Wiresharl/Tshark
and do some analysis on the set. I was able to get some things working
aleady and I think it is a great plugin. I do have some questions
though. When I look at the information on the Wiki I am a bit confused
by the two sy
Can someone help me understand why you must have the server's private
key in order to be able to decrypt the session between the client and
the server? It seems to me that if the server and client can conduct
the session without the client ever knowing the server's private key,
then a capt
Hi Everyone,
How do I post a message in reply in an existing thread and have the new
message attached to the thread?
Thanx,
John
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
just reply!
On 8/10/07, J P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> How do I post a message in reply in an existing thread and have the new
> message attached to the thread?
>
> Thanx,
>
> John
> ___
> Wireshark-users mailing list
> Wireshark-users
Misc wrote:
>Portable Wireshark stores settings in "Application Data". Is this even
>U3 compliant? :(
>
>How can I make it to store its "preferences" on the USB drive. In the
>"Options" there is no place to specify where to store settings.
It says portable wireshark is supposed to store its "prof
Misc schrieb:
> Misc wrote:
>
>
>> Portable Wireshark stores settings in "Application Data". Is this even
>> U3 compliant? :(
>>
>> How can I make it to store its "preferences" on the USB drive. In the
>> "Options" there is no place to specify where to store settings.
>>
>
> It says portabl
How do I post a message in reply to an existing thread using the HTML List
Viewer?
Thanx,
John
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
Hi,
I've been doing the same for a couple of months now, and no problems.
Only (significant!) difference is that I use dumpcap to capture into a
circular buffer. Then I pick up the files I'm interested in and decode
them using wireshark.
My guess is you can work out a similar scheme.
Thanx,
Jaa
21 matches
Mail list logo
