Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Technology

Wireshark 1.0 Released 123

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the happy-sniffing dept.
katterjohn writes "After almost 10 years of work, Wireshark 1.0 has been released. Wireshark is the award-winning protocol analyzer, formerly known as Ethereal. The release features several security fixes and an experimental package for Max OS X Intel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireshark 1.0 Released More

Wireshark 1.0 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Say ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:28PM (#22925666)
    would this still be illegal in Germany?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Since there aren't any court decisions based on that relatively new law, nobody knows. (The point of the law actually is that you can interpret it in basically any way you want.) The state attorney dismissed a case against the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (Federal Bureau for Security in Information Technology) because they are distibuting software of the kind via the Web, though.
      • Start a religion around it. The German constitution says something along the lines of unrestricted religious expression.

        • Start a religion around it. The German constitution says something along the lines of unrestricted religious expression.
          That appears to contradict Scientology's greeting by the German government.
          • Yes it does. Perhaps my source [keele.ac.uk] is incorrect. Check out article 4. My understanding is that this is current constitution after the reunification of East Germany but as you pointed out, I might be wrong.

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              He said religion

          • Re:Say ... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Monday March 31, 2008 @11:32PM (#22928058) Homepage Journal
            I think they just decided that Scientology wasn't a religion, but a business cum Ponzi scheme in clerical collars.

            Also I think what they prohibited wasn't the practice of Scientology per se, but the Church of Scientology as an organization. That the CoS believes you can't practice the 'religion' without them is kind of a separate issue. But if you want to sit in your house and think Scientology thoughts in Germany, I think you'd be protected. They just take a dim view of the whole converting-others-and-fleecing-them bit. Historically, even religiously tolerant societies have had different reactions to aggressive proselyting.

            It is a bit arbitrary, since I could think of a few other religions that aren't a ton better, but you have to admit the CoS is particularly bald-faced.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by whmac33 ( 524094 )
        German law doesn't have the concept of precedent. Each case would be decided on its own based on the law as written and not previous cases.

        IANAL and IANAGL
    • Well, i listened to a talk on the Chemnitzer Linux Tage 2007, it was right before that new law, and the referent said,
      that it is not clearly defined if such a tool would be illegal or not, because you can actually use it to gain passwords etc.,
      but since this is not the intention of the program it is not clear as I already said.
      After all if you just use it for your own network I think there should be no problem :)
      If you want to use it at work, I would recommend asking at the appropriate institution (law depa

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:32PM (#22925702)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:More useful than you would think (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2008 @06:11PM (#22926040)
      And aircrack-ng is far from an egghead tool. It's useful for... wait a minute....
    • too bad this great tool...er website got slashdotted maybe too many poeple were using wireshark 1.0 while they were browsing the page...just kidding anyways time to google for mirrors Mirror: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Internet/HTTP-WWW-/Ethereal-1961.shtml [softpedia.com]

  • Award-winning? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:33PM (#22925712)
    Whenever some product claims to be "award-winning", I always wonder what that award is. It's like the word "professional", that also lost its meaning. So, anybody have any pointers to any kind of "award"?

  • Yes, Yes, and it does... (Buried Lede?) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by curmudgeon99 ( 1040054 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:34PM (#22925724)
    Now come on! What sort of a lede is that? Just a tease and no candy? What does Wireshark 1.0 DO for pete's sake?

  • Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)

    by mudshark ( 19714 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:36PM (#22925746)
    I'll be off to update mine today. It's the best improvement on tcpdump I've ever used.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dubl-u ( 51156 ) *
      I'll be off to update mine today. It's the best improvement on tcpdump I've ever used.

      Amen to that. "Assemble TCP Stream" alone is a glorious thing, and there's so much more.

      Still, I'm a little sad that it's now v1.0. It seemed much more advanced when it was 0.9.99.9921 or whatever the last prerelease version was.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by UncleTogie ( 1004853 ) *

        Amen to that. "Assemble TCP Stream" alone is a glorious thing, and there's so much more.

        Ditto. It was the first thing I noticed, and seemed to work well with the {admittedly few} tests that I threw at it... Anyone else notice any discrepancies?

        • How does "Assemble TCP stream" differ from the "Follow TCP stream" function that's been there for ages?

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Hes Nikke ( 237581 )
            well, assemble implies that you already have all the pieces (you do), sort of like ASSEMBLING a puzzle. or a desk.

            follow implies that it'll show you anything new that comes in (i can't recall ottomh if it does this but i'd be surprised if it doesn't). think of following a trail. or a conversation.

            english is such a magical^Wgay^Winfuriating language! (said by a native speaker)

  • Congratulations (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slashnik ( 181800 )
    Well done to the whole team on reaching this milestone.
    This excellent and valuable tool has been a vital part of my toolkit for many years.
     

  • Downloads (Score:5, Informative)

    by Skuldo ( 849919 ) <skuldo@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:44PM (#22925812) Journal
    The site is slow at the moment, if you want to download the thing, skip the chase and go straight to http://sourceforge.net/projects/wireshark/ [sourceforge.net]

  • and yet... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalsushi ( 137809 ) <slashdot@digitalsushi.com> on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:45PM (#22925828) Journal
    I wish I could sniff on multiple interfaces.

    Or exclude specific interfaces from the pseudo-device available in some versions (like my linux copy)

    Or filter out duplicate packets (not retransmissions, but the literal same packet: I bridged two interfaces, and the pseudo-device captures both the bridge and the bridge member)

    Or just add localhost to a bridge.. why I can't do this is outside my understanding (until someone gives a crafty answer)

    Or even just route all traffic destined for localhost through a physical interface first (I just want to capture all my packets, including localhost and a bridge with several ethernet members, but only once!)

    Ah, it's on the wishlist. For another day, perhaps...

    • Re:and yet... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:52PM (#22925892)
      those features will be available in Wireshark 2.0, forecast for release in 2018 at their current pace

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You can capture multiple interfaces with tcpdump or what have you, and merge them with wireshark. There is also the "any" interface in wireshark.
    • It's a 1.0 Man! ;) -Taylor

    • Re:and yet... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @07:21PM (#22926674)
      :Or just add localhost to a bridge.. why I can't do this is outside my understanding (until someone gives a crafty answer)

      It's a simple reason. Bridging is a layer 2 technology, as IP is layer 3. As I expected, a "localhost" on Linux does not have a MAC address (required for layer 2).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gnalre ( 323830 )
      My no 1 request on the wish list is to be able to easily write custom packet filters to extend coverage over protocols Wireshark does not understand. The microsoft version (netmon) does allow it, although its not as clear as it should be. I do note wireshark has a rudimentary lua in interface, so maybe this will be added later.

      Still it is one of the most useful tools around and free to boot!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by asegu ( 1265582 )
      Workaround solution: make multiple captures and merge them - see http://www.ethereal.com/docs/man-pages/mergecap.1.html [ethereal.com]
  • looks like we've obliterated the poor thing already :(.
  • Finally, a software package where I can feel good about not saying "Now all we have to do is wait for version 2.0 and it'll be stable."

  • The difference between F/OSS and commercial (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2008 @05:59PM (#22925958)
    This project took 10 years of continuous development and public testing to reach a 1.0 release. This timeframe is not atypical; F/OSS 1.0 releases are usually stable, reliable, and heavily featured. Some projects never make a 2.0 release, instead making point releases on top of 1.0 indefinately.

    The 1.0 release of most commercial software comes after extremely limited public testing, and the developers scramble to make a 2.0 release within a year. Commercial 1.0 releases are frequently buggy and have obvious gaps in functionality, which are often not completely addressed in 2.0.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trojan35 ( 910785 )
      Yes, but the commercial version would have been out 8 years ago and released 2.0 7 years ago. YMMV.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 )

      I think you mean proprietary (or perhaps non-free) instead of commercial [gnu.org] software. Perhaps you are right although your claim would be more convincing if it came with evidence.

      FOSS can be distributed or developed for a fee, as part of a business. Hence FOSS can be commercial software too. If you're only referring to the price someone pays to get a copy of the program, no significant distinction is made—proprietary and FOSS are available at every price, including free. The critical distinction bet

    • It's a trip to me that you bring this up.  I just decided this evening that the FINAL release of any game by my game company will be verison 1.0.

      You never know for sure when it will be stable, but you do know when you are really done with a thing.  I always think of Doom's verison 1.666.  If they can plan on 666, I can plan on 1.0.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grcumb ( 781340 )

      This project took 10 years of continuous development and public testing to reach a 1.0 release. This timeframe is not atypical; F/OSS 1.0 releases are usually stable, reliable, and heavily featured. Some projects never make a 2.0 release, instead making point releases on top of 1.0 indefinately.

      That's because with FOSS, versioning actually means something.

      1.0 means that the first version of an application is both feature-complete and stable. It's possible, of course, to have software that is not feature

  • Download link (Score:5, Informative)

    by greenreaper ( 205818 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @06:01PM (#22925974) Homepage Journal
    wireshark-setup-1.0.0.exe [sourceforge.net]

  • Useful in Biztalk (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jasonmanley ( 921037 ) <jman@math.com> on Monday March 31, 2008 @06:11PM (#22926044) Homepage Journal
    I do a lot of Biztalk dev and I often need to send data to remote HTTP locations. Usually the outgoing message is transformed inside an outgoing pipeline and it is not always easy to see exactly what is being sent to the client. This is where WireShark has come in handy. I just monitor my ethernet interface for a few seconds. The results are usually colour coded and easy to read. Very useful tool.

    • Re:Useful in Biztalk (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcpkaaos ( 449561 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @06:44PM (#22926362)
      A dev after my own heart! I use it to capture ASP.NET web service requests as it's far easier to deal with than WSE3 tracing or serializing objects before passing them to the web proxy (which usually leaves you without namespaces anyway).

      Over the years, I've found protocol analyzers to be indispensable for developing and debugging modern MS-based network apps. They hide so damned much from the developers these days, often times it's the only way to see what's really going on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sorthum ( 123064 )
      Urm... how is the parent a troll?

  • Well, there's no hope of beating Wine now as the longest actively developed project without a 1.0 release.
    • You seem to be forgetting Enlightenment. If only they could wrap up the 0.17.* to a release

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vinn ( 4370 )
        True - they might end up overtaking Wine at some point. Wine started in 1993. I think E started in 1996 or 1997. Wine is slated to hit 1.0 in June of this year (really! we have a release schedule now!) E just has to continue plodding along for another 3 or 4 years to overtake us.

  • Hm (Score:1, Interesting)

    by mattmcm ( 1143125 )
    Why do I get the feeling this is a cruel April Fool's gag? I can't see 1.0 on the Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] page, and the site was Slashdotted so I can't check that. Gah.

  • Helped me at work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by British ( 51765 ) <british1500@gmail.com> on Monday March 31, 2008 @07:12PM (#22926598) Homepage Journal
    Long story short: I had a SQL client app that tried to connect to the SQL server with a hard-coded password. I needed to know the password to set on the server. Fired up wireshark, found the password, set said password on the server, and it was a go.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
      Makes you wonder why it has a password at all.

    • Re:Helped me at work (Score:4, Funny)

      by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <spencr04NO@SPAMhighpoint.edu> on Monday March 31, 2008 @07:53PM (#22926886)
      Another story:
      I was picking up my wireless from my neighbor and my roommate was using my computer for internet access via crossover cable.

      I needed to know the contents of his AIM messages so I fired up Wireshark.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Ezza ( 413609 )
      I did a similar thing with a commercial FTP program I had, where I'd saved the passwords but couldn't get them back in plain text.

      So I ran wireshark, connected to each of the FTP sites I wanted and recorded the passwords.

      It was a much safer option than running some dodgy cracking tool that would probably malware my machine just to get back the passwords already on it.
    • Or you could just buy the software :p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by British ( 51765 )
        This was purchased software(given to us for free by the vendor). He didn't know the password since it was a few years old, so I did the only thing I knew how. This problem would have been avoided had the security info(ie passwords) was moved over to the new SQL server.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
      It serves great to teach non technical home users about picking right ISP, using SSL all places.

      You can lecture them for hours and they will still use horribly insecure things. You fire up Wireshark with default settings and tell their ISP or that Coffee house (with wireless) admin "can run it". It is like shock theraphy. When they figure the amount of data their ISP can trace about them, they may find a better and trusted one too.

  • Max OS X Intel? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by TibbonZero ( 571809 )
    Funny, I thought it was OS X (intel) by Apple. Mac isn't a company. Mac is in reference to the computers themselves.

  • Seriously, Wireshark has saved my bacon numerous times. We recently put in an LDAP integration between our vertical-market ERP and Active Directory, with atrocious documentation on both sides, and password management is involved so AD insists on using LDAPS. Load your private key using SSL options, and voila!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Slashcrap ( 869349 )
      It's easy to simulate. Just login to a remote system via VNC/RDP and then run Wireshark on it. Remove any filters that Wireshark might automatically add to save you from yourself. You can also recreate this with SSH and tcpdump.

      I would make sure that it's not a very important remote system though.

  • I have a 'black box' on my home network. It's a voip phone, provided by our local telecom, and I'd really like to see what traffic it's sending to and receiving from the outside.

    I've scanned it with nmap and not found any open ports from the outside. It's sitting behind a nat router, and the company won't tell me which ports it would need to forwarded (though somehow it's still able to receive calls and messages from the outside).

    Actually, the company says I should forward ports 20000-60000 (seriously),

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      I am a bit confused by your reference to the NAT router in combination with 'same LAN'. If it is really beyond a router from the point of view of your LAN, it's no longer on the LAN. Unless it is sitting on the same LAN as your PC(s) and that router.

      If the box is on a an actual shared segment of Ethernet, go into a computer store and buy a hub (a real hub, mind you, not a cheap switch). Now hang your sniffer box and the phone on the hub instead of the switch. Since Ethernet is a broadcast protocol, wiresha

  • If other companies made Wireshark (Score:4, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday March 31, 2008 @11:52PM (#22928142) Homepage
    Adobe: v1.0 is released; a week later 1.0.1 is released. A few months after that, 1.0.2. Then three years go by, and suddenly it's at 2.0, which is broken from the install.

    Microsoft: v1.0 is released; no one buys it. v2.0 is released; it's still not really usable. v3.0 comes out, and people suddenly line up for it around the block. v3.0SP1 is released and fixes most of the really bad bugs while introducing a few others, some random security vulnerabilities, invalidating half the licenses of all previous versions, and causes DrDOS to crash.

    Apple: v1.0 is released, but it has a bug so Apple pulls it from the download server for a few hours, after which a patched version replaces it, with the same exact version number, and no mention of any bugfix in the release notes. Any mention of any alleged switcheroo or the problem that existed in the first 1.0 release is ruthlessly and systematically quashed in the support forums on Apple's website; unfortunately, their lawyers can't censor the entire net.

  • How is wireshark better than tcpdump? (Score:3, Informative)

    by rayvd ( 155635 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @03:05PM (#22934000) Homepage Journal
    One of the most useful features of wireshark is its breakdown of (known) protocols. It makes it a lot easier to follow a DHCP address acquisition or a DNS request and to dig into the individual flags of said DNS request (was it an update? did it have any prerequisites?)

    However, probably the best use I've found for Wireshark was troubleshooting VoIP with SIP and RTP. Wireshark has great plugins for visually laying out each step of the SIP conversation, including showing you where the RTP stream initidated at. If you've ever tried to troubleshoot SIP via a NAT setup with various proxies like SER throughout, it's an invaluable tool. It'll even graph jitter for you. Just tcpdump to an output file and load it up in Wireshark.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close