https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15210
Michael Mann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
Michael Mann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #16 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 30483 merged by Michael Mann:
IAX: Don't try and convert an invalid codec to a mask
https://code.wireshark.org/review/30483
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15258
Bug ID: 15258
Summary: ntpdc sent mode 7 packet wireshark parsing error
Product: Wireshark
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: x86
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15255
--- Comment #9 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 30468 merged by Roland Knall:
TDS: Display value of data on top of field
https://code.wireshark.org/review/30468
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #15 from Tom Hughes ---
Ah I didn't realise I actually had a fuzzshark to run.
I've opened https://code.wireshark.org/review/30483 for the second issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #14 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 30483 had a related patch set uploaded by Tom Hughes:
IAX: Don't try and convert an invalid codec to a mask
https://code.wireshark.org/review/30483
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #13 from Johannes Altmanninger ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #12)
> If I'm reading comment #2 right then he actually ran fuzzshark on the
> truncated packet which presumably made more changes to it?
Apparently it's
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #12 from Tom Hughes ---
If I'm reading comment #2 right then he actually ran fuzzshark on the truncated
packet which presumably made more changes to it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes ---
I tried that but tshark just said it was an invalid capture file and refused to
read it:
% ./run/tshark -r
/tmp/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzzshark_ip_proto-udp-5680214932193280
tshark: The
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #10 from Johannes Altmanninger ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #9)
> I've opened https://code.wireshark.org/review/30481 for the null argument
> issue.
>
> Do we have a capture of the packet which triggered the
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes ---
I've opened https://code.wireshark.org/review/30481 for the null argument
issue.
Do we have a capture of the packet which triggered the second (shift) issue?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #8 from Gerrit Code Review ---
Change 30481 had a related patch set uploaded by Tom Hughes:
IAX: Don't try and copy a non-existent address
https://code.wireshark.org/review/30481
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes ---
I'm not sure the null argument thing is actually anything to do with my edits -
the problem seems to be that the packet has no source address because there is
no IP header on it and iax_circuit_lookup is
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Altmanninger ---
Just in case you find it helpful, this is what I used
note that the environment variables have to be present when you run
wireshark/fuzzshark
WS_BIN_PATH is only necessary for running the
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
I found ENABLE_UBSAN now ;-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.___
Sent via:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
So firstly the RFC is quite old and has never been updated to reflect
extensions like codecs outside the original 32 bit range so to some extent we
have to consider what users of the protocol are
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15251
Johannes Altmanninger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aclo...@gmail.com,
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15253
Pascal Quantin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15156
Alexis La Goutte changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
20 matches
Mail list logo