Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Modbus Encapsulated Interface Transport
From: Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:19 +0100
Guy Harris wrote:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Al Pfalzgraf wrote:

  
I have been using Wireshark 1.0.3 to capture Modbus TCP traffic.   
There are messages using service 43 (0x2b), Encapsulated Interface  
Transport, service 14 (0x0e) Read Device Identification.

The capture log does not identify the messages as Modbus/T, they are  
simply tagged as TCP.

7 0.020159 151.110.68.215 151.110.1.137 TCP tclprodebugger > asa- 
appl-proto [PSH, ACK] Seq=13 Ack=13 Win=65523 [TCP CHECKSUM  
INCORRECT] Len=11
8 0.031007 151.110.1.137 151.110.68.215 TCP asa-appl-proto >  
tclprodebugger [ACK] Seq=13 Ack=24 Win=511 Len=0
9 0.100040 151.110.1.137 151.110.68.215 TCP asa-appl-proto >  
tclprodebugger [PSH, ACK] Seq=13 Ack=24 Win=511 Len=30
    
asa-appl-proto is 502, at least on my 10.5.5 Mac, so the traffic *is*  
going to and from the Modbus/TCP port, so the Modbus/TCP dissector  
should be called.

However, the dissector is checking to see whether the packet looks OK,  
and:

	[manual dissection of Ethernet, IP, and TCP headers elided]

  
00 02
    
Modbus/TCP transaction ID

  
  00 00
    
Modbus/TCP protocol ID

  
00 05
    
Modbus/TCP packet length = 5

  
01
    
Modbus unit ID

  
2b
    
Modbus function code = 43

The current Modbus/TCP dissector rejects frames it doesn't think are  
valid Modbus/TCP packets, presumably so that non-Modbus/TCP traffic to  
or from port 502 can be seen by heuristic dissectors.  It also thinks  
valid Modbus/TCP packets have a function code in the set 1-24, 40,  
125-127, so it doesn't handle a function code of 43/0x2b.

  
Does Wireshark not understand this service as part of the Modbus  
protocol?
    
Unfortunately, no.

  
If you would like to see support for this Modbus function in Wireshark, raise an Incident on bugzilla (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/), and attach a sample capture and a reference to the specification for the function.

-- 
Regards,

Graham Bloice