<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Monitor any port using any protocol with Wireshark</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chipkin.com/articles/monitor-any-port-using-any-protocol-with-wireshark/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chipkin.com/articles/monitor-any-port-using-any-protocol-with-wireshark</link>
	<description>Resources and News for industrial automation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:29:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.chipkin.com/articles/monitor-any-port-using-any-protocol-with-wireshark/comment-page-1#comment-1732</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chipkin.com/articles/?p=495#comment-1732</guid>
		<description>Curious to know if anyone has had issues in attempting to add a HTTP TCP port using approach above?

Say an exercise like appending a &quot;,11110&quot; to the end of the default HTTP / TCP Ports: &quot;80,3128,3132,8080,8088,11371,3689,1900&quot; list - to result in: &quot;80,3128,3132,8080,8088,11371,3689,1900,11110&quot;

Seems when I attempt to use FF w/ FoxyProxy to proxy my HTTP requests through :11110, Wireshark messes up on capturing or displaying the newly defined :11110 HTTP port.

At the while, my FF HTTP session works perfectly through the FireFox :11110 FoxyProxy.

and yes I&#039;m attempted to modify both my capture and display filters to squeeze some of that port 11110 traffic into my Wireshark panes - with any luck.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious to know if anyone has had issues in attempting to add a HTTP TCP port using approach above?</p>
<p>Say an exercise like appending a &#8220;,11110&#8243; to the end of the default HTTP / TCP Ports: &#8220;80,3128,3132,8080,8088,11371,3689,1900&#8243; list &#8211; to result in: &#8220;80,3128,3132,8080,8088,11371,3689,1900,11110&#8243;</p>
<p>Seems when I attempt to use FF w/ FoxyProxy to proxy my HTTP requests through :11110, Wireshark messes up on capturing or displaying the newly defined :11110 HTTP port.</p>
<p>At the while, my FF HTTP session works perfectly through the FireFox :11110 FoxyProxy.</p>
<p>and yes I&#8217;m attempted to modify both my capture and display filters to squeeze some of that port 11110 traffic into my Wireshark panes &#8211; with any luck.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How to change the default BACnet port (47808) in CAS BACnet Explorer &#124; Chipkin Automation Systems - Articles</title>
		<link>http://www.chipkin.com/articles/monitor-any-port-using-any-protocol-with-wireshark/comment-page-1#comment-982</link>
		<dc:creator>How to change the default BACnet port (47808) in CAS BACnet Explorer &#124; Chipkin Automation Systems - Articles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chipkin.com/articles/?p=495#comment-982</guid>
		<description>[...] Note: You can change the default port that wireshark uses to detect and decode BACnet messages. See this artile for more information Monitor any port using any protocol with Wireshark [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Note: You can change the default port that wireshark uses to detect and decode BACnet messages. See this artile for more information Monitor any port using any protocol with Wireshark [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

