3 ms·
> I'm not sure why you'd replace WPA* instead of use it as yet another layer of protection. Have you spent any time reading the source code of wpa_supplicant?
by octoberfranklin 5y ago
> I'm not sure why you'd replace WPA* instead of use it as yet another layer of protection.
Have you spent any time reading the source code of wpa_supplicant?
I still have nightmares from that.
- R0b0t1 5y agoWait till you see how bad embedded code is. I bet most modems on the market are hackable even when nominally offline. We saw this with the ESP32.
- zamadatix 5y agoI'd recommend iwd over wpa_supplicant but yes, it's not pretty. That said this still doesn't really answer the question of why avoid it as a layer, even a shitty layer is better than just not having one at all.