Comment # 11
on bug 11152
from Michael Mann
(In reply to Hadriel Kaplan from comment #10)
> Yeah I was wondering the same thing when I was making the code changes. I
> thought maybe it wasn't possible to have a generic common way to
> disable/enable heuristic dissectors, but looking at them it sure looks like
> it should be.
>
> But it's not completely trivial to do so, because some/many of them need to
> be disabled by default, and the way they've done that in code is
> inconsistent; so I'd have to go through each protocol that has a heuristic
> and verify what it does. And arguably the heur_dissector_add() should be
> changed to take a boolean of whether it should be enabled/disabled by
> default.
>
> There are ~200 protocols that add a heuristic dissector, so it's a big job
> but not insurmountable. Maybe we should take this to the dev list?
Wouldn't hurt to do so. I don't mind doing the grunt work (of "converting" the
~200 dissectors), I just usually feel handcuffed by "backwards compatibility"
(because I think any dissector that has an explicit preference for enabling its
dissector should be removed)
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.