Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2
From: "Mino Ernesto" <Ernesto.Mino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:51:33 -0500
Thanks a lot Gianluca. -----Original Message----- From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Viernes, 02 de Abril de 2010 02:00 PM To: wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2 Send Wireshark-users mailing list submissions to wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx You can reach the person managing the list at wireshark-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wireshark-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces (Mino Ernesto) 2. Re: PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces (Gianluca Varenni) 3. Re: 4 extra ports opened (M K) 4. Re: 4 extra ports opened (Martin Visser) 5. Re: 4 extra ports opened (M K) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:32:08 -0500 From: "Mino Ernesto" <Ernesto.Mino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces To: <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <54CA535C8B393C46A7ECC8168A952AA91EB92848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi all, I'm trying to capture information on an already established ppp connection (actually, I'm using a 3G USB modem for this), but it doesn't appear at the Interface List. I'm using Windows XP. The PPP interface doesn't show up at WinDump -D as well. I think it might be a problem with WinPcap or something. Can anyone help me please? Regards, Ernesto. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100401/28fc 5d86/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:58:30 -0700 From: "Gianluca Varenni" <gianluca.varenni@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces To: <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <BB708C53086A42319A634B282AA08C96@NELSON3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please file a winpcap bug as explained here: http://www.winpcap.org/bugs.htm Have a nice day GV From: Mino Ernesto Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 4:32 PM To: wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces Hi all, I'm trying to capture information on an already established ppp connection (actually, I'm using a 3G USB modem for this), but it doesn't appear at the Interface List. I'm using Windows XP. The PPP interface doesn't show up at WinDump -D as well. I think it might be a problem with WinPcap or something. Can anyone help me please? Regards, Ernesto. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- En Telef?nica-Movistar nos sentimos orgullosos de ser la Mejor Empresa para Trabajar en el Ecuador - Ranking Great Place To Work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ________________________________________________________________________ ___ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100401/1bfe 6bd3/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:22:21 -0800 From: M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <r2yb4ea502d1004011722od32d9b04g2258f35be1b9ef8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems - > https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection > . > Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. > > And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopback address > only reachable from the machine itself. > > So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring on > unfound fear) > > Regards, Martin > > MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have all >> traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a >> browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports (127.0.0.1:extra >> ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these >> four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could >> someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. >> Thanks >> >> -- >> All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. >> >> ~Edmund Burke >> ________________________________________________________________________ ___ >> 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 >> > -- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. ~Edmund Burke ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:03:36 +1100 From: Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <j2lb3739b0c1004011803qa9ed2fb1t437f6043798ed43d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" You haven't said what platform you are running on, but in the out-of-the-box Wireshark on Windows the loopback interface doesn't exist (it does on other platforms) http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback <http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback> Regards, Martin MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware > interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should > also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the > Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my > question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. > > On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems - > > > https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection > > . > > Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. > > > > And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopback > address > > only reachable from the machine itself. > > > > So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring on > > unfound fear) > > > > Regards, Martin > > > > MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have all > >> traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a > >> browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports (127.0.0.1:extra > >> ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these > >> four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could > >> someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. > >> Thanks > >> > >> -- > >> All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. > >> > >> ~Edmund Burke > >> > ________________________________________________________________________ ___ > >> 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 > >> > > > > > -- > All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. > > ~Edmund Burke > ________________________________________________________________________ ___ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100402/ed5f 2b16/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:50:13 -0800 From: M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <g2mb4ea502d1004020650uef87f848p5556d3cec200d03b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Low end machine for the time being. Windows 2000 SP4, OEM version. WS Version 1.0.9 (SVN Rev 29911) I am confused. I can ping 127.0.0.1 and my proxy is bound to the localhost, yet when I go into Device Mgr > Hardware, indeed, there is no loopback listed!? Just as you said. So what actually am I pinging and what is my proxy actually bound to? Thank you for this information. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You haven't said what platform you are running on, but in the out-of-the-box > Wireshark on Windows the loopback interface doesn't exist (it does on other > platforms) > > http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback > <http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback> > Regards, Martin > > MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware >> interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should >> also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the >> Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my >> question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. >> >> On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems - >> > >> https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection >> > . >> > Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. >> > >> > And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopback >> address >> > only reachable from the machine itself. >> > >> > So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring on >> > unfound fear) >> > >> > Regards, Martin >> > >> > MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have all >> >> traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a >> >> browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports (127.0.0.1:extra >> >> ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these >> >> four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could >> >> someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> -- >> >> All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. >> >> >> >> ~Edmund Burke >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ ___ >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. >> >> ~Edmund Burke >> ________________________________________________________________________ ___ >> 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 >> > -- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. ~Edmund Burke ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users End of Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2 **********************************************
- Prev by Date: [Wireshark-users] New MAC user, No Capture Interfaces
- Next by Date: [Wireshark-users] wireshark rpm for centos 5.3
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-users] New MAC user, No Capture Interfaces
- Next by thread: [Wireshark-users] wireshark rpm for centos 5.3
- Index(es):
- Get Wireshark
- Download
- Code of Conduct