Wireshark vs Firebug vs Fiddler - pros and cons? [closed]

Question

Recently, I came across an issue where a CGI application is not responding. Symptom is Firefox displaying:

Transferring data from localhost...

But the thing is I cannot see any traffic from Firebug's Net panel, and the browser just stays on the same stage forever.

I am thinking about the ways to debug this application but I cannot see the source code or any of its compiled Java/C++ components, therefore I reckon a HTTP network level of diagnostics is a good start.

I have little experience in Fiddler and Wireshark, just wondering will they get better feedback/statistics in the HTTP network level? I've heard Wireshark is advanced but could possibly introduce a large volume of traffic so system admins don't like it very much. At this time I think Firebug doesn't really show me enough information.

I need to collect information so that I can then forward to client as proof.

Answer 1

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.