Re: Using Google Protobuf to Export Full Packet Dissection Data via Named Pipe

["Mark () verizon net" <mlandri () verizon net>]

Thanks Roland! 

I guess I'm asking if it'd be value added for me to submit my protobuf solution as an addition to current Wireshark dev 
branch. I've already written the code. I'd just have to figure out how to incorporate it into the Wireshark build 
process. It's written in c++ and requires pthread and protobuf libs be installed.

Happy to do it but would be good to know beforehand if it'd be compatible with Wireshark design ethos and if the 
community would see value in it.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Roland Knall <rknall () gmail com> wrote:
>
> Did you take a look at tshark's -T parameter? "tshark -T jsonraw" for instance, delivers full dissection in Json 
> format. What would be needed is only to shove that into a pipe to capture from some other place.
>
> Cheers
> Roland
>
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Mark Landriscina <mlandri () verizon net> wrote:
> >
> > Apologies in advance if this question is a bit long-ish.
> >
> > I've been wondering why Wireshark/tshark doesn't offer the option to export full packet dissection data via named 
> > pipe (serialized binary data). Is this due to design philosophy, lack of offers to write the code, or some other 
> > reason? Of course, packet dissection data can be written out to stdout or a file in xml format. Perhaps this meets 
> > most needs?
> >
> > Reason for the question is that I needed a dissection data export option that was more efficient than xml. My 
> > solution was to modify tshark so it can leverage Google Protocol Buffers to export packet dissection data as 
> > serialized binary data. Serialized dissection data is written out to a named pipe. Protobuf dissect tree creation, 
> > serialization, export code is all written in C++ and takes advantage of all the optimization work Google has put 
> > into its Protobuf library. The client/read side of the pipe can be written in any language supported by the Protobuf 
> > library. I wrote mine in Python. The client reads and parses the serialized dissection data (again) using Google 
> > Protobuf lib recreating dissection tree data on client side.
> >
> > Would it be advantageous to incorporate the above Protobuf approach into the Wireshark project or would the 
> > community consider it unnecessary or perhaps undesirable?
> >
> > If you're curious about implementation, you can see my project at the following location: 
> > https://gitlab.com/MLandriscina/protoShark.git. This is the first time that I've used Protobuf, so I wouldn't be 
> > surprised to discover that better implementations are possible.
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> > Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> >              mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe