wireshark-dev October 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > wireshark-dev archives
wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark or protocol bug? (H

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark or protocol bug? (HTTP MIME multipart)

From: Anders Broman <a.broman_at_nospam>
Date: Tue Oct 26 2010 - 15:59:56 GMT
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>

Kaul skrev 2010-10-25 23:55:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xs4all.nl
> <mailto:jaap.keuter@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I see no problem here. It loads fine in Wireshark 1.4.1.
>
> What I do see, and which is a bug in Wireshark, is that it doesn't
> treat it as multipart/mixed, as stated in RFC 2046, Section 5.1.3:
>
> Any "multipart" subtypes that an implementation does not recognize
> must be treated as being of subtype "mixed".
>
>
> Indeed (and I'll see if I can fix that), but I've actually also
> specifically added multipart/encrypted to packet-multipart (and
> registered gssapi in multipart_media_type table and in media_type
> table so it'll recognize it specifically) - bu I still get the
> exception (because of the missing CR-LF-CR-LF expected?). RFC 1847,
> section 2.2 seems to show an example - with double CRLF.
Taking a brief look at your trace it seems like double CRLF may be
missing in some places, compare
with this trace which I think is correct.
See also RFC 2046 5.1.1. I think I used RFC 2045 - 2049 helping to
implement this.

>
> TIA,
> Y.
>
> Thanks,
> Jaap
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:08:18 +0200, Kaul <mykaul@gmail.com
> <mailto:mykaul@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to add dissection of Kerberos encrypted HTTP sessions.
>> Mostly, it's OK (got the headers parsed correctly, would file a
>> BZ for this patch soon).
>> However, when I'm trying to work with the body, which is a MIME
>> multipart, it fails with exception.
>> The reason seems to be that it does not have the double CRLF
>> which is expected between headers and body of a MIME (?):
>> imf_find_field_end() seems to fail to find additional CRLF -
>> before the binary data (which is actually a Kerberos blob) appears.
>>
>> Attached please find a small capture showing the problem - not
>> sure who's fault it is - or if it's fixable somehow in Wireshark.
>> See packet 8 (dissect as HTTP please).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Y.
>>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list
> <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org <mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org
> <mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org>?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list<wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe