Is the Loopback npcap added by Wireshark? If so we only need it when using WS Wireshark. So it would be ok to disable the loopback in Control Panel until we need it, right? The reason we have to disable it, it is showing APIPA 169.254.x.x and therefore affecting my Image program Storagecraft Image Manager which points to 127.0.0.1
The loopback adaptor installed by npcap ins't required by Wireshark, unless you want to capture local loopback traffic.
If you never need to capture loopback traffic, you can uncheck the option to install the loopback adaptor in the npcap installer.
So it would be ok to disable the loopback in Control Panel until we need it, right?
Yes, it's perfectly fine to install the Npcap Loopback Adapter and then Enable/Disable it via "Control Panel -> All Control Panel Items -> Network Connections" as needed. I am forced to do this myself whenever I work remotely; otherwise my connection to to my corporate office fails, which has to do with my company's policy of only allowing a single active interface in this situation.
As a follow-up to this answer, it should be noted that beginning with Npcap version 0.9983 [2019-08-30], Npcap no longer installs the Npcap Loopback Adapter, so this is no longer applicable. From the CHANGELOG:
Loopback capture and injection no longer requires the Npcap Loopback Adapter to be installed. This is a minor API change, so Nmap 7.80 and earlier will still require the adapter to do localhost scans, but Wireshark and most other software will not require changes. Loopback capture uses the device name NPF_Loopback instead of NPF_{GUID}, where GUID has to be looked up in the Registry. The Npcap Loopback Adapter can still be installed by selecting "Legacy loopback support" in the installer or using the /loopback_support=yes command-line option. TheLoopbackSupport Registry value will always be 0x00000001.
The loopback interface is added by Npcap; the Wireshark installer can install Npcap, but it can be directly installed as well.
This question is probably best raised as an Npcap issue.
Comments