Occasionally, there are little gotchas. Like when using the "!=" operator, a yellow warning flashes a few times saying:
"!=" may have unexpected results (See the User's Guide)My first thought: "There's a User's Guide?" My second: "Couldn't you give me a link to it?"
OK, Fine. Here's a direct link to the section "A Common Mistake with !=". The problem is related to "combined expressions", like eth.addr, ip.addr, tcp.port, and udp.port. Those expressions do an implicit "or"ing of the corresponding source and destination fields. E.g. saying tcp.port==12000 is shorthand for:
(tcp.srcport==12000 || tcp.dstport==12000)
So if you want the opposite of tcp.port==12000, it seems logical to use tcp.port!=12000, thinking that it will eliminate all packets with either source or destination equal to 12000. But you're wrong. It expands to:
(tcp.srcport!=12000 || tcp.dstport!=12000)
which, doing a little boolean algebra is the same as:
!(tcp.srcport==12000 && tcp.dstport==12000)
In other words, instead of eliminating packets with either source or destination of 12000, it only eliminates packets with both source and destination of 12000. You'll get way more packets than you wanted.
The solution? Use:
!(tcp.port==12000)
or better yet, expand it out:
tcp.srcport!= 12000 && tcp.dstport!=12000
I prefer that.
What's So Special About "!="?
It got me to thinking about other forms of inequality, like ">" or "<". Let's say you want to display packets where source or destination (or both) are an ephemeral port:tcp.port > 49152
Now let's say you want the opposite - packets where *neither* port is ephemeral. If you do this:
tcp.port <= 49152
you have the same problem (but this time Wireshark doesn't warn you). This displays all packets that where source or destination (or both) are non-ephemeral.
At the root of all this is the concept of "opposite". With:
a compare b
you think the opposite is:
a opposite_compare b
But given the existence of combined expressiions, it's usually safer to use:
!(a compare b)
No comments:
Post a Comment