Wireshark · Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 11852] New: PacketBB (RFC5444) dissector displays IPv4 addresses incorrectly

[bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Bug ID	11852
Summary	PacketBB (RFC5444) dissector displays IPv4 addresses incorrectly
Product	Wireshark
Version	Git
Hardware	All
OS	All
Status	UNCONFIRMED
Severity	Minor
Priority	Low
Component	GTK+ UI
Assignee	bugzilla-admin@wireshark.org
Reporter	lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de

Created attachment 14119 [details]
capture of a packetBB packet illustrating the faulty IPv4 address

Build Information:
Version 2.1.0 (v2.1.0rc0-392-g676e7ec from master)

Copyright 1998-2015 Gerald Combs <gerald@wireshark.org> and contributors.
License GPLv2+: GNU GPL version 2 or later
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Compiled (64-bit) with Qt 5.4.1, with libpcap, without POSIX capabilities,
without libnl, with libz 1.2.8, with GLib 2.44.1, without SMI, with c-ares
1.10.0, without Lua, without GnuTLS, without Gcrypt, without Kerberos, without
GeoIP, without QtMultimedia, without AirPcap.

Running on Linux 3.19.0-33-generic, with locale C, with libpcap version 1.6.2,
with libz 1.2.8.
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7500  @ 2.93GHz

Built using gcc 4.9.2.

Wireshark is Open Source Software released under the GNU General Public
License.

Check the man page and http://www.wireshark.org for more information.
--
Hi,
I've found that the 'human-readable' display of IPV4 addresses in an Address
block produced by the packetbb(RFC5444) dissector is incorrect. Instead of
displaying, for example "10.1.3.0", it displays "0.0.0.10", even though the
values in the hexdump appear to be correct. I've attached an example packet in
which this issue occurs (the address/prefix length data in there is bogus, but
that shouldn't matter).

I've found the issue while using a self-compiled version I buit this week (fromrevision 30c7736), but apparently it also pops up in older versions.

I'll submit a patch for this issue in a minute.

Cheers,
Lotte

---

      You are receiving this mail because:

• You are watching all bug changes.