On Thursday 01 June 2006 12:23, ronnie sahlberg wrote: > since it is a very rarely used protocol > the worry would be for false positives. > if the dissector mistakes common protocols for this one instead. > I would be ok with its inclusion if its heuristics can be made very > very strong so the chance of a false positive is very low. Only the CSP protocol is critical, since the other protocols use a fixed, 32-bit SCTP payload protocol identifier. That is, the probability of a misidentification is extremely low (1 to 2^32). CSP uses an UDP port, but the header conatins a type field (1 byte) and a version number (4 bytes). The dissector checks for a valid version number (currently, only 0x00000200 is valid) and a valid type (currently, only 0x01 is defined). In combination with the UDP port number, there is an extremely low probability for a misidentification (40 header bits + 16 bit UDP port number must match). > a wiki page and example traces would be looked at positively. A pcap example trace of the protocols is attached to this mail. Best regards -- ======================================================================= Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Dreibholz University of Essen, Room ES210 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstraße 29 Computer Networking Technology Group D-45326 Essen/Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: dreibh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Homepage: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh =======================================================================
Attachment:
pgpC5YrI6Elfv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Attachment:
rsplib-protocols.pcap.gz
Description: GZip compressed PCAP traces
Powered by MHonArc 2.6.10