Huge thanks to our Platinum Members Endace and LiveAction,
and our Silver Member Veeam, for supporting the Wireshark Foundation and project.

Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Summary View Info Column

From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:08:10 -0700
Stephen Fisher wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:06:25AM -0000, Keith French wrote:

In recent versions of Wireshark this behaviour seems to have changed, in that it tries to resolve the source port of the SYN as well. The name it resolves it to (on my PC anyway) is often misleading:-

qsnet-trans > http [SYN]

This is because we now ship Wireshark with a full services file (port to name mapping) from the IANA. Windows has one built-in, but it is much shorter than the one we now use.

...and, if Microsoft were to decide to add more entries to their services file, you'd have exactly the same problem.

Furthermore, people on at least some UN*Xes already have this problem, regardless of *what* version of Wireshark they run:

	$ egrep qsnet-trans /etc/services
	qsnet-trans     4354/udp    # QSNet Transmitter
	qsnet-trans     4354/tcp    # QSNet Transmitter

and there's no good reason why this is only an issue for Windows users.

This means that not shipping the new services file is *not* a correct solution to the problem:

	1) it doesn't protect you against Microsoft adding those entries;

	2) it doesn't do anything for UN*X users.

Not unless you want to turn off port name lookups hroughout Wireshark, which can be done in the Name Resolution preferences (transport name resolution).

If this is a serious problem, perhaps we could either supply two services files, or flag entries in services files, so we could distinguish between "common" and "uncommon" well-known port numbers - or just distinguish between "well-known" ports (0-1023) and "registered" ports (1024-49151) - and have an option to resolve only "common" or "well-known" ports or to resolve "uncommon" or "registered" ports along with those.