On 12 aug 2010, at 10:09, Thierry Emmanuel wrote:
>> Your suggestion of parsing the data is indeed unique and intersting.
>> Are you suggesting that dumpcap or ethereal would somehow interogate the
>> link, follow it and then make a determination. This sounds like a very
>> interesting prospect but I'm not fully sure I understand how it would work.
>
> It were a solution a bit "violent". ;) This information could be extracted
> by a mime-type analyzer processing the content of the page.
> But I had forgot a more simpler solution. You can read the mime-type
> announced by the webserver, located in the "Content-type" field. As says
> RFC 2616, this information isn't required in the packet but in fact it is
> allmost always there. So when this field is present in the http response,
> you can parse it and check that the response is html, plain text, or xml.
> If it isn't, you can discard it (by this way, you'll be able to ignore
> images, videos, applets, javascript files, css files (less important because
> they are commonly hosted on the same domain), so a large part of noise.
>
> The difficulty is that if you extract the required url from the request, you
> have to make a relation between the request and the response and you might
> need scripting. You could bypass this limitation by working only on the
> response but I don't have studied that point especially.
The whole problem is that each object requested by a browser can be an object that was requested by the user or an object that was needed for displaying the webpage that the user requested. Only by parsing the html (and js and css) we can deduct whether an object was automatically requested by the browser or was intentionally requested by the user by clicking on a link. There are specialized products that do just that and can give you great reports... but they are expensive...
The best I have come up with so far is to look only at requested objects of type "text/html" and then look at the referer instead of the host header (and the host header if the referer is empy). But also this is far from perfect. It leaves in false positives and might have some false negatives too. But you can give it a shot to see how it compares to what you already have...
tshark -nlr http.cap -R 'http.request and http.accept contains "text/html"' -T fields -e http.host -e http.referer | awk '$2=="" {print $1;next} {print $2}' | sed -e 's#^http://\([^\/]*\).*$#\1#' | sed -e 's/^.*\.\([^\.]*\.[^\.]*\)$/\1/' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -100
As said before, it all depends on the goal you try to achieve and the means you have to achieve them.
Cheers,
Sake
