> On 19 Jun 2019 (Wed), at 14:00, Dario Lombardo <lom...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:42 PM Sake Blok | SYN-bit <sake.b...@syn-bit.nl > <mailto:sake.b...@syn-bit.nl>> wrote: > Hi Dario, > To me for troubleshooting issues, it is sufficient to see the usernames and > sometimes extract a password, but I do not need a list of them > For security awareness, you do not need the passwords, just the protocol and > username and the fact that the password is available in the pcap file > For hacking you would want to have the full list, but then I would prefer > people to use other available tools to keep Wireshark on the friendly side of > the line. > > > Hi Sake > I am partially convinced by what you said. Partially because I'm not totally > convinced, but I think also that "for troubleshooting it is sufficient to see > the usernames" actually _IS_ a point. > A solution that could kill 2 pigeons with a stone could be to leave the > passwords behind, but add a shortcut to "go to the packet" where you can find > the actual password. That will raise the credentials to the attention of the > analyst, but would require a step, that is pretty similar to the regular > wireshark use, to obtain the single password. > The good part is that adding or removing the presence of the password is very > easy, so adding them back, in case we will want them, will not require too > much work. > Would it work?
Sounds like a good compromise to me! Sake
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
