Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] SSL + DTLS

["authesserre samuel" <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok,

so we will make a parallele dev on dtls and  ssl ;)

I have no time this week I'll start to correct preferences and others
stuff in dtls dissector from monday.
I'll inform you ....

regards,

Samuel

PS: what is the things that are missing in ssl dissector (I have
stopped dev because I tought that all was done....) thanks for your
answer....

On 6/29/06, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ah, a misunderstanding.
>
> ok.    so the dtls stuff does not require linking with openssl then
> there wont be any problem at all.
>
> thanks for clarifying.
>
>
>
> please also see   wiki.wireshark.org/SSL
> i just checked in a change to the preference syntax that is not
> backward compatible for ssl decryption.
>
> i think it makes it better.   please mimic these changes in dtls
> dissector   (i have little interest in dtls personally now   but great
> interest in ssl decryption)
>
>
> i will do more changes and refactoring to ssl decryption over time.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/29/06, authesserre samuel <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> >
> > I was talking about modifying directly openssl implementation allowing
> > me to make test on dtls dissector implementation.
> > In ethereal I can use (its the fact actually) gnutls because the only
> > usefull fonction to realize dissector is the cryptographics ones no
> > the send or receive one (based on tcp) that's why I choose to continue
> > with modifying dtls dissector in the same scheme as ssl one and
> > modifying openssl dtls implementation to have a complete dtls
> > implementation (and dissection with wireshark ;) )
> > so I can make mistake but the dtls dissector can be added on win32
> > version (like ssl?), the fact is dtls ans ssl dissectors use the same
> > functions in packet-ssl-utils.h so I think there is no problem (dtls
> > dissector don't use openssl at all).
> > tell me if I am right
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > samuel
> >
> >
> > On 6/29/06, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > it would just mean that dtls decryption would not work out of the box
> > > for win32 users since we can not ship win32 versions of ethereal
> > > linked with openssl.
> > >
> > > no drama.   if there is enough interest in the feature someone will
> > > implement the required gnutls magic if you dont have time.    if not
> > > it just mean there is no interest.
> > >
> > >
> > > i have associates that need the ssl decryption feature now so dont
> > > worry about ssl.    ill do the updates required to ssl.
> > > (beware     preference breaking update/change estimated to go in in 10
> > minutes)
> > >
> > > please ty to follow the ssl changes i do to svn for your dtls code.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/29/06, authesserre samuel <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > it isn't compatible  at all(bsd licence), and i have already posted on
> > > > gnutls mailing list to propose a dtls implementation.
> > > > in a first time i think it could be a good idea to have an
> > > > implementation that work correctly and in a second time another to
> > > > test interoperability
> > > > I have only one month to consacrate to project i don't think that i
> > > > could make gnutls implementation in this time....(i will do all i can
> > > > because i would like a gpl'ed implementation)
> > > > gnutls have the advantage that it implement TLS 1.1 but in other side
> > > > it have to change a lot of things for UDP adaptation
> > > >
> > > > I will try to finish openssl implem and in a second time i will look
> > > > at gnutls (if you are ready to help me  ;) )
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > samuel
> > > >
> > > > On 6/28/06, Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:31:28AM +0200, authesserre samuel wrote:
> > > > > > but dtls work on openssl version 0.9.b who contains many errors (I
> > > > > > have listed them on openssl-dev mailing list and correct 2 of them)
> > > > > > but in current time i havent time to finish implementation of dtls
> > > > > > (i'll try to correct it during july and dtls dissector in the same
> > > > > > time)
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be feasible to use another lib than openssl (gnutls + gcrypt)
> > > > > instead? I'm still not really convinced that the way we provide
> > openssl
> > > > > is really compatible with gpl (and especially distros enabling it).
> > > > >
> > > > >  Ciao
> > > > >       Joerg
> > > > > --
> > > > > Joerg Mayer
> > <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff
> > that
> > > > > works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > > > > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Authesserre Samuel
> > > > 12 rue de la défense passive
> > > > 14000 CAEN
> > > > FRANCE
> > > > 06-27-28-13-32
> > > > sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > > > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Authesserre Samuel
> > 12 rue de la défense passive
> > 14000 CAEN
> > FRANCE
> > 06-27-28-13-32
> > sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev


--
Authesserre Samuel
12 rue de la défense passive
14000 CAEN
FRANCE
06-27-28-13-32
sauthess@xxxxxxxxx