Ethereal-users: RE: [Ethereal-users] Sniffer Pro vs. Ethereal

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Jeff Parker <jparker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:34:53 -0400
Agreed.  It is something that a box dedicated to the task can 
do that freeware on standard-issue boxes cannot.  

It may not have sounded like it, but it was really quite
a compliment to Ethereal that there aren't more reasons
to shell out serious change for a sniffer or the like.  
A compliment to the people that write the software and 
the decodes, allowing Ethereal to produce new decodes 
at a rate that companies have trouble matching.  

- jeff parker

> > I've been able to capture frames in the Sniffer that were
> > too damaged to be passed up by any self-respecting 
> > ethernet card to Ethereal.  
> 
> The classic DOS Sniffer probably had its own drivers for the Ethernet
> adapter, so, if the card could be told to supply even runts, packets
> with bad CRCs, etc. to the host, they could make it do so.
> 
> The Windows Sniffers might have their own drivers as well, or there
> might be a way to tell an NDIS driver to do so (I don't have NDIS
> documentation handy, so I don't know if that's the case).
> 
> Ethereal depends on the OS's drivers and capture mechanism (or, on
> Windows, on the OS's drivers and the WinPcap capture mechanism), so
> there are limits on what it can do.
>