4 ms·
Ah, PFS. PFS is good :) Thanks for your response. (I was feigning a bit of ignorance, I'm a bit of a minor crypto nerd.) OK, cool, so WPA3 has PFS. But so
by loxias 3y ago
Ah, PFS. PFS is good :) Thanks for your response.
(I was feigning a bit of ignorance, I'm a bit of a minor crypto nerd.)
OK, cool, so WPA3 has PFS.
But so does wireguard.
When I opine "what's really the _point_ of WPA3? (and wpa2!) I'm mentally comparing it to _no_ encryption at layer 1 (aka open network), but with performant (and arguably more secure) encryption at layer 3.
- caskstrength 3y agoNot all people are (self proclaimed) "crypto nerds" who have Wireguard-based VPN running on all their wireless devices at all times. I would venture a guess that absolute majority of people don't.
- GTP 3y agoI sencond this, better to implement encryption at the lower layers, so that people get protected regardless of how the upper layers are built/configured.
- est31 3y agoWPA3 is definitely not as secure as wireguard, but it's a pretty good improvement compared to WPA2. 99% of people just use the defaults of their WiFi deployment, and then have stuff like network printers or NAS on there, with varying levels of encryption. Thankfully due to https being so widespread, most of the traffic to the public net is encrypted now. But even now you can find out which websites someone visited by looking at DNS and also the ip addresses of the packet headers.