3 ms·
No, that's factually wrong. KRACK showed the protocol itself is vulnerable, not the implementations, and it affects all devices. https://www.krackattacks.com/
by mtgx 8y ago
No, that's factually wrong. KRACK showed the protocol itself is vulnerable, not the implementations, and it affects all devices.
https://www.krackattacks.com/ https://www.krackattacks.com/
This is really why they went with WPA3, but I've noticed the Wi-Fi Alliance goes to great lengths to avoid any mentions of KRACK. So now, many, like you, are scratching their heads wondering what's the point of WPA3.
- xchikux 8y agoYou are right, the protocol is broken. But that is only because it was accepted with a flaw that should be fixable. While re-starting routers it was possible for an attacker to re-use nuonces (number used once). Because of a "SHOULD" clause in the RFC, the fix was optional and made it vulnerable. Had that been a "MUST" (required) We would not be hearing even the a trace of WPA3. An excerpt from the same website you sourced : "When the victim reinstalls the key, associated parameters such as the incremental transmit packet number (i.e. nonce) and receive packet number (i.e. replay counter) are reset to their initial value. Essentially, to guarantee security, a key should only be installed and used once. Unfortunately, we found this is not guaranteed by the WPA2 protocol."