Re: Malformed Packet

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:17 AM, "Ewgenij Sokolovski" <ewgenijkkg () gmx de> wrote:

> Maybe it would be a good idea to change the error output? "Malformed Packet" is too general and misleading sometimes.

"Malformed packet" is used in some other cases as well.  Either we should stop putting "Malformed packet" into the 
protocol tree at all, and put the real error as the main message rather than the secondary message, or we should, at 
least, improve the secondary message(s).  In this particular case, perhaps "packet is too short" is better than the 
geeky "exception occurred".

> For example, not the packet could be malformed but the dissector could be buggy :)

That could be the case for *any* case where the packet dissection claims there's something wrong with the packet.

___________________________________________________________________________
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