Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enabling/disabling ANY heuristic dissector
From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 00:33:28 -0400
My 2 cents:

> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?

While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most users/IT-folks understand what a “Dissector” is?  I think we’ve been conditioned to think of that word because we look at the code. But I could easily be wrong about that.

> Should we have a single table, listing protocols, with up to two checkboxes, one for the "identifier-based" dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if none) and one for the heuristic dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if none)?

I think a single table will be more confusing since several protocols have heuristic dissectors for more than one underlying transport/protocol type.  Of course we could just enable/disable a protocol’s heuristics for all underlying transports as all-onf/off... but I’m just sure someone will have some reasonable use case for enabling heuristics for some protocol over TCP but not UDP or vice-versa, and then we’d be back to creating a preference for that protocol to do so.

In fact I’d probably be one of those people: if our RTP heuristic dissector supported TCP (for RFC 4571), I’d want it kept off on TCP always, but I used to have it turned on for UDP all the time in my previous job.