Bug 2144 - crash on specific snmp packet
Summary: crash on specific snmp packet
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Wireshark
Classification: Unclassified
Component: GTK+ UI (show other bugs)
Version: 0.99.7
Hardware: x86 Windows XP
: Medium Major (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Wireshark-bugs mailing list
URL:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-12-28 13:28 UTC by ernst.vogel
Modified: 2007-12-30 22:04 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
gtp/snmp-packet causing wireshark 99.7 to crash (539 bytes, application/octet-stream)
2007-12-28 13:30 UTC, ernst.vogel
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ernst.vogel 2007-12-28 13:28:23 UTC
Build Information:
Version 0.99.7 (SVNRev 23910)

Compiled with GTK+ 2.12.1, with GLib 2.14.3, with WinPcap (version unknown),
with libz 1.2.3, with libpcre 6.4, with SMI 0.4.5, with ADNS, with Lua 5.1, with
GnuTLS 1.6.1, with Gcrypt 1.2.3, with MIT Kerberos, with PortAudio PortAudio
V19-devel, with AirPcap.

Running on Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, build 3790, with WinPcap version
4.0.2 (packet.dll version 4.0.0.1040), based on libpcap version 0.9.5, without
AirPcap.

Built using Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 build 8804
--
With snmp-protocol enabled, wireshark 0.99.7 crashes with an specific snmp-packet.Before the crash, the following printout was on the debug-console window:

"Warn dissector bug, protocol snmp, in packet 3441: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION: dissector accessed an invalid memory address"

On Wireshark 0.99.6a the same packet was displayed without problems.
I have extracted this packet from the temporary capture-file (but I dont't know how to attach it)?
With 0.99.7 it's not possible to load it (it will crash), with 0.99.6a it's ok.
Comment 1 ernst.vogel 2007-12-28 13:30:08 UTC
Created attachment 1315 [details]
gtp/snmp-packet causing wireshark 99.7 to crash
Comment 2 Stig Bjørlykke 2007-12-28 22:27:22 UTC
I have committedrevision 23962 which should solve this.
Are you able to test this fix?


Comment 3 ernst.vogel 2007-12-30 22:04:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> I have committedrevision 23962 which should solve this.
> Are you able to test this fix?

I have made some tests with this revision and it work's fine!

Thanks a lot & Best Regards
Ernst