----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Curley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: [WinPcap-users] packet lengths off by 4 bytes?


> I am some what new to PCap, but I am familiar with network code and packet
> sniffers, so I downloaded the Windows API (which By the way is incredible)
> and wrote a UDP packet sniffer program in MFC in about 2 days to play
> around and analyze some proprietary protocols, and I noticed something
> strange. The packet lengths set in my:
>
> pcap_pkthdr
>
> by
>
> pcap_next_ex
>
> always differ from what EtherPeek (another Packet sniffer program)
> captures, by 4 bytes. To test it just to make sure I hadn't screwed up
> something with my implementaion, I ran Ethereal and EtherPeek at the same
> time and sure enough they come across as different. After looking at the
> data, it appears that the EtherPeek packet all had an appended 4 bytes of
> NULL added to them. So the question is, is PCap stripping these off, or is
> EtherPeek adding them on?

WinPcap does not strip any byte from packets. Since they do not contain
valid data (FFFF) I think it's some sort of frame tail used by the etherpeek
capturing engine (just my opinion, of course).

Have a nice day
GV


>
> Thanks for your time and I apologize if this question has been asked
> previously, I scoured the previous 4 pages of mailing list subjects and
> didn't see anything that looked like it addresses this.
>
> --jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> ==================================================================
>  This is the WinPcap users list. It is archived at
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>
>  To unsubscribe use
>  mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==================================================================
>





==================================================================
 This is the WinPcap users list. It is archived at
 http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

 To unsubscribe use 
 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==================================================================

Reply via email to