Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2
From: "Mino Ernesto" <Ernesto.Mino () telefonica com ec>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:51:33 -0500
Thanks a lot Gianluca. -----Original Message----- From: wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of wireshark-users-request () wireshark org Sent: Viernes, 02 de Abril de 2010 02:00 PM To: wireshark-users () wireshark org Subject: Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2 Send Wireshark-users mailing list submissions to wireshark-users () wireshark org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wireshark-users-request () wireshark org You can reach the person managing the list at wireshark-users-owner () wireshark org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wireshark-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces (Mino Ernesto) 2. Re: PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces (Gianluca Varenni) 3. Re: 4 extra ports opened (M K) 4. Re: 4 extra ports opened (Martin Visser) 5. Re: 4 extra ports opened (M K) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:32:08 -0500 From: "Mino Ernesto" <Ernesto.Mino () telefonica com ec> Subject: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces To: <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Message-ID: <54CA535C8B393C46A7ECC8168A952AA91EB92848 () OTECELEXCQ03 otecel com ec> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi all, I'm trying to capture information on an already established ppp connection (actually, I'm using a 3G USB modem for this), but it doesn't appear at the Interface List. I'm using Windows XP. The PPP interface doesn't show up at WinDump -D as well. I think it might be a problem with WinPcap or something. Can anyone help me please? Regards, Ernesto. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100401/28fc 5d86/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:58:30 -0700 From: "Gianluca Varenni" <gianluca.varenni () cacetech com> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces To: <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Message-ID: <BB708C53086A42319A634B282AA08C96@NELSON3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Please file a winpcap bug as explained here: http://www.winpcap.org/bugs.htm Have a nice day GV From: Mino Ernesto Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 4:32 PM To: wireshark-users () wireshark org Subject: [Wireshark-users] PPP interface not showing up under Interfaces Hi all, I'm trying to capture information on an already established ppp connection (actually, I'm using a 3G USB modem for this), but it doesn't appear at the Interface List. I'm using Windows XP. The PPP interface doesn't show up at WinDump -D as well. I think it might be a problem with WinPcap or something. Can anyone help me please? Regards, Ernesto. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- En Telef?nica-Movistar nos sentimos orgullosos de ser la Mejor Empresa para Trabajar en el Ecuador - Ranking Great Place To Work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ________________________________________________________________________ ___ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100401/1bfe 6bd3/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:22:21 -0800 From: M K <gedropi () gmail com> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Message-ID: <r2yb4ea502d1004011722od32d9b04g2258f35be1b9ef8a () mail gmail com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99 () gmail com> wrote:
This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems -
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection
. Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopback
address
only reachable from the machine itself. So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring on unfound fear) Regards, Martin MartinVisser99 () gmail com On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi () gmail com> wrote:Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have all traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports
(127.0.0.1:extra
ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. Thanks -- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing.
~Edmund Burke
________________________________________________________________________ ___
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list
<wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org ?subject=unsubscribe
--
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.
~Edmund Burke
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:03:36 +1100
From: Martin Visser <martinvisser99 () gmail com>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened
To: Community support list for Wireshark
<wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Message-ID:
<j2lb3739b0c1004011803qa9ed2fb1t437f6043798ed43d () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
You haven't said what platform you are running on, but in the
out-of-the-box
Wireshark on Windows the loopback interface doesn't exist (it does on
other
platforms)
http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback
<http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback>
Regards, Martin
MartinVisser99 () gmail com
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, M K <gedropi () gmail com> wrote:
I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99 () gmail com> wrote:This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems -
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection
. Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopbackaddressonly reachable from the machine itself. So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring
on
unfound fear) Regards, Martin MartinVisser99 () gmail com On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi () gmail com> wrote:Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have
all
traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports
(127.0.0.1:extra
ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. Thanks -- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing.
~Edmund Burke
________________________________________________________________________ ___
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org ?subject=unsubscribe-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. ~Edmund Burke
________________________________________________________________________ ___
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list
<wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org ?subject=unsubscribe
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/attachments/20100402/ed5f 2b16/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:50:13 -0800 From: M K <gedropi () gmail com> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] 4 extra ports opened To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Message-ID: <g2mb4ea502d1004020650uef87f848p5556d3cec200d03b () mail gmail com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Low end machine for the time being. Windows 2000 SP4, OEM version. WS Version 1.0.9 (SVN Rev 29911) I am confused. I can ping 127.0.0.1 and my proxy is bound to the localhost, yet when I go into Device Mgr > Hardware, indeed, there is no loopback listed!? Just as you said. So what actually am I pinging and what is my proxy actually bound to? Thank you for this information. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99 () gmail com> wrote:
You haven't said what platform you are running on, but in the
out-of-the-box
Wireshark on Windows the loopback interface doesn't exist (it does on
other
platforms) http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback <http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback> Regards, Martin MartinVisser99 () gmail com On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, M K <gedropi () gmail com> wrote:I I realized that WS was picking up traffic off the hardware interface, but was unsure if in the promiscuous mode, it could/should also pick up software interfaces (127.0.0.1). Curious about the Password Manager reference since FF does not request pws. So my question is: Which passwords? I will look into that. Again thanks. On 4/1/10, Martin Visser <martinvisser99 () gmail com> wrote:This is a known requirement for Firefox on non-UNIX systems -
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+makes+unrequested+connectio ns#Loopback_connection
. Googling elsewhere indicates it is to do with the password manager. And besides, as it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, this is the loopbackaddressonly reachable from the machine itself. So for you there is no risk (a case of too much knowledge can bring
on
unfound fear) Regards, Martin MartinVisser99 () gmail com On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, M K <gedropi () gmail com> wrote:Currently I am using Firefox browser manually configured to have
all
traffic use a single port thru my proxy. However, when I launch a browser, FF opens four additional, consecutive ports
(127.0.0.1:extra
ports) as seen with netstat. In WS, when I search for these four additional ports I do not find them. Not an expert so could someone please enlighten me. I hate to have anything invisible. Thanks -- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing.
~Edmund Burke
________________________________________________________________________ ___
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org ?subject=unsubscribe-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing.
~Edmund Burke
________________________________________________________________________ ___
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list
<wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org ?subject=unsubscribe
--
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.
~Edmund Burke
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users () wireshark org
https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
End of Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2
**********************************************
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: Wireshark-users Digest, Vol 47, Issue 2 Mino Ernesto (Apr 02)