Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Looking for a portable sniffing-friendly hub/switch
There are some other issues with the GS105E, which probably make it less of a recommendation than I initially thought:
http://forum1.netgear.com/showthread.php?t=49571
I have summarized the currently available info on the Wiki:
http://wiki.wireshark.org/SwitchReference/NetGear
Lars
-----Original Message-----
From: RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **
Sent: jeudi 20 mai 2010 14:27
To: 'Community support list for Wireshark'
Subject: RE: [Wireshark-users] Looking for a portable sniffing-friendly hub/switch
Good point.
Actually it does listen on port 80/TCP!
And i am able to build up the TCP connection.
But the HTTP request seems kind of to be bounced back!?
Strange.
See trace attached.
My PC is IP 192.168.0.97 and the device is 192.168.0.239.
I tried http://192.168.0.239, as well as http://192.168.0.239/admin/ and http://192.168.0.239/config/, just in case.
The trace contains also the exchanges with the config tool (UDP ports 63321, 63322).
Several other IP adresses appear in this, although there's only my PC and the switch connected P2P.
Lars
-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin Cullimore
Sent: jeudi 20 mai 2010 13:17
To: wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Looking for a portable sniffing-friendlyhub/switch
On 5/20/2010 5:54 AM, RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR ** wrote:
>> Hmmm.... have you captured the configuration traffic generated by the configuration utility? ;-)
>>
> It's something proprietary (not yet dissected ;-) ) over UDP via broadcast!
>
Does nmap (or equivalent software) indicate that it's listening on ANY
tcp ports?
> Lars
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sake Blok
> Sent: jeudi 20 mai 2010 11:02
> To: Community support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Looking for a portable sniffing-friendlyhub/switch
>
> On 20 mei 2010, at 10:44, RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR ** wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, indeed, forgot to mention that and that's what can be considered a serious drawback. Only a Windows configuration utility is shipped and I haven't yet found out how to configure the switch otherwise.
>>
> Bummer... as I have become a Mac user... Hopefully the configuration utility works from within a Windows VM :-)
>
>
>> A simple http://[address] or telnet [address] yields no success.
>> The manual doesn't mention anything of that sort either.
>>
> Hmmm.... have you captured the configuration traffic generated by the configuration utility? ;-)
>
>
>> Another thing that would have made it perfect would have been PoE.
>> To be clear: It does NOT provide PoE.
>>
> For a nice PoE capable mirroring switch, have a look at Betty's post on LMT:
>
> http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2010/04/review-of-dualcomm-5-port-pass-through-port-mirroring-switch-by-betty-dubois.html
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Sake
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list<wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list<wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
