Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] False-Positives handling with heuristic filters
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:13, Roland Knall <rknall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have a more general question: At what point do you stop carrying about false-positives with a heuristic filter?
Historically it's been "when people stop filing bug reports". I haven't seen any bug reports of type "my protocol X is getting dissected as openSAFETY instead", so I think you're ok :)
> I have openSAFETY traces, where less then 0,2% of all displayed frames are false-positives. But I cannot finetune the heuristic anymore, or I increase the risk for getting false-negatives.
>
> Is there a point in fine-tuning down to an ideal 0% or do you just say, a certain number of false-positives should be considered ok?
>
> There are two approaches left for me, to further down the number, first being, that I rewrite the CRC calculation and include it in the heuristic search for frame 2. This might increase the time the dissection needs to filter. The second approach is to include a preference, and filter out certain number in a field, because they highly suggest a false-positive.
>
> Both approaches would complicate the development of openSAFETY device, because you would no longer see false messages which might occur during development.
>
> Has anyone got some ideas here?
>
> regards,
> Roland
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
