Hi,
I have no intention of speaking about a subject wich i'm not savvy about.
Identifying a protocol by it's port seemed lame to me because any program
running on any given port would falsify any diagnostic. The occurence i
witnessed is still unresolved but i'm going to look into it again,
fortunately i have the proof stored on my share.
In the meantime i've read up on protocols/protocol headers and realise this
is not the easiest task to complete without error margin. Should i ever come
up with an idea on what's better to do i'll let you people know :)
Please realise that though i did not express myself very clearly (fame
lasts) i appreciate using Ethereal and respect the contributors.
Regards,
Joris
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brad Hards [mailto:bhards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: woensdag 4 juni 2003 10:24
>To: Lambrecht Joris; ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Ethereal-users] Possible Protocol Mismatch
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:21 pm, Lambrecht Joris wrote:
>> Thus i assume Protocol decoding is linear and will not revert to a
>> not-so-close-match after failing the first match ? That is
>probably what's
>> happening. Although identifying a protocol simply by
>port-assignment seems
>> pretty lame to me, certainly not what i would expect from a
>project like
>> Ethereal wich counts quite a lot of contributors.
>How would you suggest that we identify protocols?
>
>Brad
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE+3ayYW6pHgIdAuOMRAsbxAKCgKpe14agFI60qkhsH7xJ/TmMw4ACghQdc
>iU/5Ys35DxoxhA8cK6+BwqI=
>=S+AE
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
