WiresharkvsFirebug vsFiddler-利弊？

最近，我遇到了一个问题，一个 CGI 应用程序没有响应。症状是 Firefox 显示:

从本地主机传输数据..。

但问题是我看不到 Firebug 的 Net 面板有任何流量，而浏览器永远停留在同一个平台上。

我正在考虑调试这个应用程序的方法，但是我看不到源代码或任何已编译的 Java/C + + 组件，因此我认为 HTTP 网络级别的诊断是一个良好的开端。

我在小提琴手和 Wireshark 几乎没有经验，只是想知道他们是否能在 HTTP 网络级别得到更好的反馈/统计？我听说 Wireshark 很先进，但可能会引入大量的流量，因此系统管理员不太喜欢它。这个时候我觉得 Firebug 没有给我提供足够的信息。

我需要收集信息，以便我可以转发给客户作为证据。

113525 次浏览
小开

None of the above, if you are on a Mac. Use Charles Proxy. It's the best network/request information collecter that I have ever come across. You can view and edit all outgoing requests, and see the responses from those requests in several forms, depending on the type of the response. It costs 50 dollars for a license, but you can download the trial version and see what you think.

If your on Windows, then I would just stay with Fiddler.

小开

The benefit of WireShark is that it could possibly show you errors in levels below the HTTP protocol. Fiddler will show you errors in the HTTP protocol.

If you think the problem is somewhere in the HTTP request issued by the browser, or you are just looking for more information in regards to what the server is responding with, or how long it is taking to respond, Fiddler should do.

If you suspect something may be wrong in the TCP/IP protocol used by your browser and the server (or in other layers below that), go with WireShark.

小开

Wireshark, Firebug, Fiddler all do similar things - capture network traffic.

  • Wireshark captures any kind of network packet. It can capture packet details below TCP/IP (HTTP is at the top). It does have filters to reduce the noise it captures.

  • Firebug tracks each request the browser page makes and captures the associated headers and the time taken for each stage of the request (DNS, receiving, sending, ...).

  • Fiddler works as an HTTP/HTTPS proxy. It captures every HTTP request the computer makes and records everything associated with it. It does allow things like converting post variables to a table form and editing/replaying requests. It doesn't, by default, capture localhost traffic in IE, see the FAQ for the workaround.

小开

If you're developing an application that transfers data using AMF (fairly common in a particular set of GIS web APIs I use regularly), Fiddler does not currently provide an AMF decoder that will allow you to easily view the binary data in an easily-readable format. Charles provides this functionality.

小开

I use both Charles Proxy and Fiddler for my HTTP/HTTPS level debugging.

Pros of Charles Proxy:

  1. Handles HTTPS better (you get a Charles Certificate which you'd put in 'Trusted Authorities' list)
  2. Has more features like Load/Save Session (esp. useful when debugging multiple pages), Mirror a website (useful in caching assets and hence faster debugging), etc.
  3. As mentioned by jburgess, handles AMF.
  4. Displays JSON, XML and other kind of responses in a tree structure, making it easier to read. Displays images in image responses instead of binary data.

Cons of Charles Proxy:

  1. Cost :-)
小开

Fiddler is the winner every time when comparing to Charles.

The "customize rules" feature of fiddler is unparalleled in any http debugger. The ability to write code to manipulate http requests and responses on-the-fly is invaluable to me and the work I do in web development.

There are so many features to fiddler that charles just does not have, and likely won't ever have. Fiddler is light-years ahead.

小开

To complement the list, also be aware of http://mitmproxy.org/


提交答案