but the problem with wireshark is that it displays too much information...
Best way to get around this would be to set up either "capture" or "display" filters,
ie.say in order to only capture/display outgoing http traffic.Here's the general how to...
http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureFiltershttp://wiki.wireshark.org/DisplayFiltersFor example,in it's most simplest and basic form,you could set up a display filter like...
"
http contains .exe",he-he...

'Problem' is,that it is not guaranteed in advance that the malware in question,
will specifically use http....it might as well connect via irc,ftp,tftp etc.
Even more,malware might also not try fetching other .exes at all:
it could possibly try downloading extra config files,
or it might post statistics data about the machine that got infected etc,etc...
Which means,that depending on what you're doing,
you will almost certainly find yourself in the need of adjusting the filters accordingly...
A way less effective/more generic way (but certainly worths trying out),
would be to disable/disselect all the options related to name resolution:
way less data returned this way...Wireshark will also be quite lighter in terms of memory usage.
There are lots of other reliable packet sniffers out there that you could give a shot as well,
that return way less info by default when compared to Wireshark...
Wireshark is simply the "de facto" standard that all researchers out there make use of,
exactly because it can be customized as much as you want,as described per above...
===========================Note:Just a suggestion...if possible,prefer changing the direct links to malicious sites/.exes,
say from http to
hxxp or something,because mistakes unfortunately do happen,lol...
