https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4581
--- Comment #2 from Scott.Cocks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2010-03-16 07:18:16 PDT ---
Ok cool. Somehow I missed the whole Export as plain text thing. I think
obfuscation/annotation would still be a great feature for both traces and
exported text. Otherwise we have to do our own mangling with perl. It would
be better to just select which fields (by display filter syntax) are sensitive
and let Wireshark find them.
(In reply to comment #1)
> If you need the ability to "Suppress raw bytes", you obviously will not be able
> to send traces, as traces *are* the raw bytes. Presumably, for that, you're
> talking about sending the output of "Export as plain text" or of running
> "tshark -V" on the file.
>
> Wireshark *already* has the ability to, for "Export as plain text", control
> whether the packet details or raw bytes are shown - presumably you mean
> something other than that for
>
> Suppression:
> checked Suppress raw bytes
> unchecked Suppress details
>
> You speak of "specify[ing] certain fields within the trace that I want
> Wireshark to suppress"; I assume you're referring to that, so that the packet
> detail information for those (and any custom columns in the packet summary for
> those) would not be shown. Presumably the hex dump contents for those fields
> would also be suppressed, e.g. by showing each byte as just "XX", so it's not
> as if "suppress raw bytes" and "suppress details" would be separate operations
> - they'd *both* be suppressed.
>
> Obfuscation could be done for "Export as plain text" output - and, with some
> additional work, could perhaps be leveraged for obfuscating trace files.
>
> "Annotation", at least for IP addresses, could already be done with a private
> host file, if we're talking about the output of "Export as plain text".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.