Comment # 6
on bug 12283
from Guy Harris
(In reply to Guy Harris from comment #3)
> (In reply to Guy Harris from comment #1)
> > Unless you've tried traffic for all ports from 1 to 1023, you cannot validly
> > conclude that this is a problem for all ports < 1024. Have you done so?
> >
> > In fact, port 995 is for POP-over-SSL.
>
> And port 2443 is for Cisco's Skinny protocol atop SSL, so there's nothing
> limiting this to protocols under 1024, either.
And if I use bittwiste to change the NFS client port to 2443, Wireshark again
treats the RPC/NFS traffic as SSL.
If you set the TCP preference "Try heuristic sub-dissectors first" to true, it
recognizes the traffic in question as RPC.
However, it'd be better if there were a way to have the SSL dissector reject
traffic that's "obviously" not SSL; whether that's possible to do without
rejecting traffic that *is* SSL is another matter. "Guessing protocols is
hard, let's go shopping!"
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
