Ethereal-users: Re: [Ethereal-users] msproxy protocol

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:52:10 -0700
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 02:42:06PM -0700, Ed Sawicki wrote:
> I agree. However, in  this case, we have a UDP packet with source
> port 1745 and destination port 53. Ethereal incorrectly assumes port
> 1745 is the real protocol when port 53 is more likely to be correct.
> A well-known port (1-1023) should always trump a registered port (1024
> an up). This is far more likely to be correct more of the time than the
> reverse.

I checked in a change to have the TCP, UDP, and SCTP dissectors try the
lower-numbered port first and the higher-numbered port second.

> By the way, why does the IANA list call port 1745 remote-winsock?

I don't maintain that list, so I have no idea.