Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fileobject"

From ForensicsWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(sugestion: Use carvpath anotations)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
===sugestion: Use carvpath anotations===
 
===sugestion: Use carvpath anotations===
 
I see the use of colons in byte_runs content. Earlier versions of libcarvpath used such a notation, but cross platform concerns resulted in this being changed into the plus sign.
 
I see the use of colons in byte_runs content. Earlier versions of libcarvpath used such a notation, but cross platform concerns resulted in this being changed into the plus sign.
I would suggest that the [http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/carvpath/index.php?title=CarvPath_annotations | CarvPath annotation format] may be a suitable alternative for annotating
+
I would suggest that the [http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/carvpath/index.php?title=CarvPath_annotations CarvPath annotation format] may be a suitable alternative for annotating
 
byte_runs content. This is a straight forward and simple format, for example:
 
byte_runs content. This is a straight forward and simple format, for example:
 
   
 
   

Revision as of 05:25, 23 August 2011

sugestion: Use carvpath anotations

I see the use of colons in byte_runs content. Earlier versions of libcarvpath used such a notation, but cross platform concerns resulted in this being changed into the plus sign. I would suggest that the CarvPath annotation format may be a suitable alternative for annotating byte_runs content. This is a straight forward and simple format, for example:

 4096+53248_258048+28672_S1047552

Would be the way to annotate a byte_runs consisting of:

1) A 53248 byte fragment at offset 4096 2) A 28672 byte fragment at offset 258048 3) 1047552 bytes of sparse data.

I don't suggest adding long token notations. Just the '+', '_' and 'S' stuff.