Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)
From: Robert Nichols (SEE_SIGNATURE_at_localhost.localdomain.invalid)
Date: 05/02/05
- Next message: David Bromage: "Re: FC3 wiping its own resolv.conf"
- Previous message: prg: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- In reply to: Kunael: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- Next in thread: ynotssor: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:53:56 +0000 (UTC)
In article <d53d34$slv$1@antonio.escomposlinux.org>,
Kunael <kunael4@yahoo.es> wrote:
:> I think tcpdump is very useful to have a look at the traffic in
:> real time, but the king of sniffers, if you want to study the
:> traffic deeply is ethereal.
:
:Until the present day, I've used tcpdump and iptraf in my boxes.
:Is possible to run ethereal in a system without X? I hate install de X
:system in a server-machines.
You can run tcpdump to do the capture and save the raw data ("-w"
option), and then use ethereal to display the result. Both ethereal and
tcpdump use libpcap to perform the capture, so there's almost no
difference in capability there. The libpcap file format produced by
tcpdump is also ethereal's native file format.
-- Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "rnichols42"
- Next message: David Bromage: "Re: FC3 wiping its own resolv.conf"
- Previous message: prg: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- In reply to: Kunael: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- Next in thread: ynotssor: "Re: comparing sniffer tools (tcpdump, ethereal, etherape, ethercap, drifnet)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|