Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] wireshark-0.99.2 and OpenBSD 3.9
From: Joerg Mayer <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:59:25 +0200
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Dale Carstensen wrote:
> I browsed a bit in the gmane archive for the problems I'm seeing
> building wireshark 0.99.2 on OpenBSD 3.9, and all I found was a
> note about adding @[email protected] to Makefile.am in 3 places, so I'm
> thinking the problems I see haven't been addressed.

I don't remember everything correctly, but I applied some patches
during the last few days, so please get a *current* SVN snapshot
and try again.
If the problem still exists, please create a new bug at
http://bugs.wireshark.org/, assign that bug to me and we may try to
find out what's going on here.

>                                              And I'm looking at
> wireshark because ethereal doesn't seem to be in the OpenBSD 3.9
> ports.  Oh, and I see from the [email protected] archive from openbsd that
> ethereal was dropped in, oh, July 2004, for having too many
> security vulnerabilities.  Well, that in itself is thought-provoking.

Well, whether that move made sense at the time or didn't is open to
debate, but if you are paranoid about security, then yes, I can
understand why you would do something like that. [Sidenote: The
recently discontinued support for Suse9.1 has Ethereal in the list
of the most often patched programs, 10 updates in just 2 years:
http://lwn.net/Articles/192339/]
Quite some work in the last years has been put into making Ethereal
(now Wireshark) more a) less buggy and b) reduce the effect of
missed bugs (buildbot, http://wiki.wireshark.org/WishList search
for security, http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/PrivilegeSeparation).

Ciao
        Joerg

-- 
Joerg Mayer                                           <[email protected]>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.