[Tomas Kukosa <tomas.kukosa@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.

And the wrong packet will be more visible.
BTW do we have any any exception like "Invalid packet"?

ronnie sahlberg wrote:

> i think it would be valid to throw an exception right there when the tag 
> is wrong.
>
> even it the length is correct  it is more than likely something is 
> pretty broken anyway so it is unlikely in my opinion that any attempts 
> to try to skip to the next token and continue would work.
>
>
>
>
> On 9/22/05, Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gharris@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     Currently, the BER dissector will put a "BER Error" item into the
>     protocol
>     tree if it is attempting to dissect an item of a particular type but the
>     tag on the item says it has another type.  It returns an offset that
>     runs
>     past the end of the item after that.
>
>     This means that, for example, callers to dissect_ber_octet_string() who
>     pass it a tvbuff_t ** have to check whether the tvbuff_t * returned is
>     null, which it will be if the item didn't have a tag  appropriate to an
>     octet string.  I've checked in a bunch of changes to add checks for
>     that.
>
>     Should we, for any or all of the cases where a "BER Error" item is
>     currently put into the protocol tree, be throwing an exception and
>     giving
>     up on dissection?  One could argue that, if the tag is wrong but the
>     length is correct, *not* throwing an exception lets us try
>     dissecting more
>     of the packet.