https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5486
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fall <kfall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-18 08:42:20 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> ...
> > In the end, I think people should be aware that it's all SSL implemented in
> > different versions.
>
> There you have it, you'll have to know some history to understand the present
> day.
> So, close this as 'WONTFIX' ?
I guess this is philosophical at this point. I will confess I have used
tcpdump and WS for years but never looked much at security protocols. When
that time finally came, I went straight for looking for TLS and was surprised
for it to be under SSL. Also, given that SSL 2.0 or earlier appear to be
deemed "don't use" its a little uncomfortable looking at a trace on your
network under SSL when its really one of the more recent (e.g. SSL 3.0+-based)
items like TLS1.2. For a newbie in this area, its definitely confusing and a
bit alarming. And when using WS for an educational purpose (like I am) it
causes a slight side-bar about why the WS people like the historical names
versus the (I believe more accurate) current names, esp when the protocols have
grown to be incompatible.
I hadn't noticed the BOOTP/DHCP issue until this discussion, but another is
coming, which is ISAKMP v IKE. Should I bother filing that one?, because it
brings up pretty much the same sort of philosophy.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.