Hi Hadriel,

Thanks for your reply.I will apply your patch.

Thanks,
Lohith

On Thursday 28 February 2013 01:45 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
2013/2/28 Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>


    Wireshark's SIP dissector is throwing an error on the RAck header
    field method name.
    It shouldn't, because the message's header is correctly formed,
    but there's a bug in packet-sip.c:
    for case POS_RACK, when it goes to add the method name, it's using
    '(int)linelen-sub_value_offset' for the length argument to
    proto_tree_add_item(),
    but should be using '(int)value_len-sub_value_offset'.

    patch:
    Index: epan/dissectors/packet-sip.c
    ===================================================================
    --- epan/dissectors/packet-sip.c        (revision 47899)
    +++ epan/dissectors/packet-sip.c        (working copy)
    @@ -2734,7 +2734,7 @@
                                                    {
proto_tree_add_item(rack_tree, hf_sip_rack_cseq_method, tvb, value_offset + sub_value_offset, - (int)linelen-sub_value_offset, ENC_ASCII|ENC_NA); + (int)value_len-sub_value_offset, ENC_ASCII|ENC_NA);
                                                    }

                                                    break;

Hi Hadriel,

Thanks for the patch! I committed it in revision 47936 and scheduled it for backport in 1.8.6 and 1.6.14.

Regards,
Pascal.


    On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:21 AM, Lohith HS
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    > Hi ,
    >
    >    I am getting malformed packet in SIP message(PRACK) in
    wireshark 1.6.7 version.
    >    But if i see the same capture in 0.9 version ,  there is no
    malformed packet issue.
    >    Pls can anyone tell me what is the issue.i have attached the
    capture file.
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Lohith
    > <sip_prack_malformed.pcap
    >___________________________________________________________________________
    > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
    > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
    > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
    >             mailto:[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe

    ___________________________________________________________________________
    Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
    Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
                 mailto:[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe




___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list<[email protected]>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
              mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to