Comment # 5
on bug 10283
from Alexis La Goutte
(In reply to comment #3)
> We could also initialize the reported_length with the real length instead of
> MAX_UNMASKED_LEN... This way the packet would be reported as "packet size
> limited during capture" instead of "malformed". It's not the real cause but
> still better than pretending that the packet is malformed.
> By the way, it looks like packets > 64K does happen in real life. Should not
> we increase the limit to 256K for ex?
OK for me !
(In reply to comment #4)
> I have no objection to raising the limit. You would have to ask Gerald why
> it was put in place in the first place.
Oups sorry, i think it is you change but no it is a Gerald commit !
May be also add decode of MQTT ? (there is already a dissector for mqtt)
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.