Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Processing packet before exporting it.
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:41:29 +0000


On 27-11-2017 13:50, Maynard, Chris wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of João Valverde
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:14 PM
To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Processing packet before exporting it.



On 22-11-2017 17:02, Pascal Quantin wrote:



Le 22 nov. 2017 17:36, "Dario Lombardo" <dario.lombardo.ml@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dario.lombardo.ml@xxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :

     On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Manik Khandelwal
     <manik123khandelwal@xxxxxxxxx

<mailto:manik123khandelwal@xxxxxxxxx>>

     wrote:

         I want to edit the bytes with full knowledge of structure.


     There was such a feature in wireshark GTK gui. It has not been
     ported to QT yet and there are no plans at the moment for that.
     Maybe you could try to compile it or use some bin package that
     provide the old gui and play a little bit with it. For the sake of
     completeness: it's just a bit more than an hex editor, by the way.
     But points to the actual packet bytes, that makes some of the job
     you should do yourself with an hex editor.
     Hope it helps.


There was indeed an experimental packet editor, but it was very
limited (basically as far as I can remember it could edit values like
what you could do with an hex editor, but was not a generic encoder
for any given protocol).



Change proposing removal: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/24563



I guess I'm late to the party because I was on vacation, but what was the point of removing this feature?  Wireshark Gtk UI development is no longer active, so there's no reason to expect any new features to be added, but I wouldn't expect working, useful features to be removed either, especially when there's no Qt equivalent.
Understood. It's still up for discussion. I don't have any problem with removing features. I have objections with #ifdef'ed out code without continuous testing.