3 ms·
It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join y
by verandaguy 2y ago
It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between?
- nlawalker 2y ago> It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. It doesn’t, they have exactly as much agency as they would if the shortcut didn’t exist. > As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between? If you want more control than a shareable password provides, it’s on you to implement something other than a shareable password. A feature that merely helps people share passwords doesn’t change that.
- austhrow743 2y agoHow does it change the network owners ability to decide who gets to join their network?
- kalleboo 2y agoIf you need control over who joins your network, implement 802.1x or a captive portal or something. If you just use a WPA key, people will always share them, you can't stop them, there are literally crowdsourced online databases of "free internet" WiFi keys
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway3306a 2y agoUse RADIUS then. If you told someone the password, they can share it
- sussmannbaka 2y agoYou have that control: allowlist individual devices
- ClassyJacket 2y agoThe guests could already simply tell each other the password