Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: port monitoring
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
Guy Harris <guy@...> writes:
tcp.port != 80 and tcp.port !=443 and udp.port != 80 and udp.port !=443Yes, that's the right way to filter it out once you've captured the packets.
The capture filters would help
if you want to avoid even *capturing* "uninteresting" packets (TCP or UDP
packets to or from port 443). Even better is to use something like the following to avoid any possible ambiguities that could possibly arise: !(tcp.port == 80 or tcp.port == 443 or udp.port == 80 or udp.port == 443) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- port monitoring mike dodson (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring Marco Zuppone (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring mike dodson (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring Guy Harris (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring Christopher Maynard (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring mike dodson (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring Marco Zuppone (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring sigafoose (Sep 04)
- Re: port monitoring Christopher Maynard (Sep 04)