There’s also a proposal to bring occurrence-matching to filtering in
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3791, but even if this were to be implemented it would still have its limits since it would only match packets where the occurrence was
the same for all packets, which isn’t necessarily going to be the case.
From: Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Graham Bloice
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:31 AM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Filtering on a field when there is more than one such field in a Wi-Fi packet
tshark has the "-E occurrence=f|l|a" option to print the
first, last or all occurence of the field in a packet but that is only filtering the output when using -T fields, not matching packets.
Hi Richard,
The display filter engine has no concept of individual instances of a field, either it’s there in a packet or not and its value is used in the _expression_. Where it is in the packet and in what relation to other fields in a display filter _expression_ is of no
concern of the display filter engine. It is a question that comes up once in a while, so its not unheard of, but no one has dared to venture into redoing the whole display filter engine design to make this possible. It would at least require an overhaul of
the syntax, and I’m not even sure it is possible with the current dissection engine design.
Thanks,
Jaap
> On 13 Aug 2020, at 22:12, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I faced an interesting problem recently.
>
> I was typing to find a particular tagged item with a tag length
> greater than a specific size.
>
> This presented a problem because many Wi-Fi packets have tagged fields
> and a search filter like wlan.tag.number == X and wlan.tag.length >=
> some-value is prone to false positives if any tagged field in the
> frame has that number and any other tagged field in the frame has a
> length ge the value.
>
> How can I limit the length comparison to the tag found in the first comparison?
>
> Do we even have that concept?
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is the property of International Game Technology PLC and/or its subsidiaries and may contain proprietary, confidential or trade secret information. This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
|
