happyPersonR3 hours ago
One piece of modern software without which, modern society would not exist. People don’t realize there’s no real alternative.
armitron2 hours ago
Wild exaggeration. Wireshark is very limited in what it can do and has gained few if any new power-user features (especially when it comes to extensibility and programmability) in more than a decade of development. The macOS-specific functionality in this very post has been available for years.
Anyone who relies on non-trivial packet capture or processing workflows, ditches Wireshark (optionally reusing dissectors) and writes custom tooling (which is very easy to do).
ellg2 hours ago
Even the dissector stuff feels so.. broken? unmaintained? The lua api is very annoying to use and python support was removed over a decade ago. Have not used the C API so maybe thats just what most people use and its good, but for my usecase I usually just want to quickly sketch out a view for a custom protocol that I can see in the UI.
I would absolutely love for someone to write a good alternative to wireshark.
elevation2 hours ago
As a constant Wireshark user who's personally thanked Gerald Combs for this tool, we don't need an alternative to wireshark, just some architectural refactors. Many packet dissection fields are embarrassingly parallel, but because some of them can involve previous/future packets, wireshark does all packet dissection in a single thread. So when I scoop up 10M packets it can take 20 minutes for the GUI to load them all with a single core, while 100 other cores on the same machine sit idle.
Once loaded, you have to be super careful. One update to the filter bar, like "!icmp" and you'll have to wait another 20 minutes for all the dissectors to be re-run (for some reason.)
As a previous commenter stated, if you work with Wireshark a lot, you eventually write your own tool for your performance needs. It feels magical to have a 3-page C program sitting over libpcap giving reports in miliseconds that would take wireshark minutes.
rhynolitean hour ago
FWIW, Wireshark 4.6.0 ships with `sharkd`, which encapsulates all the EPAN dissectors into a simple to use server that accepts JSON-RPC requests.
It is quite easy to write specialized performance tools on top of `sharkd`, and since it has the entire power of the EPAN (including statistics, charts etc.), using `sharkd` is significantly more effective than reading straight from libpcap.
vdm34 minutes ago
ellg33 minutes ago
You're right, and I didnt mean to sound dismissive of the great work that has been put into wireshark. I agree with you on the refactoring comment, and if that's something that can be solved in the current codebase and something I can help contribute towards with donations I would be perfectly fine with this outcome as well.
As it stands though, using the gui bits of the wireshark family of tools is just painful, and slow (as you stated)
colechristensenan hour ago
>It feels magical to have a 3-page C program sitting over libpcap giving reports in miliseconds that would take wireshark minutes.
Any demos available of something like this?
colechristensen2 hours ago
Recently I discovered you can use an android device as a live remote capture device for bluetooth and Internet captures and iOS for Internet captures.
Not creating a capture and then downloading it, actual real time network captures.
Avamander2 hours ago
Any ways to bring that to Linux or Windows? I've long yearned for a solution for this.
c0nsumeropan hour ago
It supports ETW as an input format, but I (personally) haven't yet gotten my head around how to do the same.
My current worflow is capture with pktmon, then analysis in Microsoft Network Monitor to expose PID stuff.
I figure there /has/ to be a way to do it similarly in Wireshark, I just haven't found a how-to and haven't dug into it myself. Once I do (it's on my casual todo list) I'll do a writeup on that as well, since it'd be super useful.