44
16
bryancoxwell 23 hours ago

In my experience this is a feature of wireless networks that’s been largely forgotten/ignored, and I’m not sure why. It seems that making PMF optional by default would have zero downsides: protect the devices that support it while maintaining compatibility with older devices. Question for anyone more knowledgeable on the subject: is there a good reason PMF doesn’t have wider adoption?

RedShift1 21 hours ago

I run a small time wireless network for a business (about 100 concurrent clients at any given time), I had to disable PMF because some devices simply wouldn't work.

Edit: also, from my notes at setup time, some devices could connect but then had trouble roaming.

oakwhiz 23 hours ago

In practice, it doesn't always seem to be compatible with older devices.

0xfuzzer 22 hours ago

Typical deauth attacks are prevented, sure. However, clients are not protected until the 4-way handshake is complete, so that can still be interrupted. There are also a number of management frame types (and all control frames) that are not protected, some of which are just as effective, if not more effective, at DoS than deauth frames are.

Asmod4n 23 hours ago

When enabling WPA 3 for a network PMF is set to required by the unifi network server apparently, that’s a nice change.

OptionOfT 21 hours ago

This is. It a UniFi thing. WPA3 requires PMF.

teekert 21 hours ago

Hmm, may explain why I had to switch back to wpa2 when half my stuff didn't work (like shelly sensors) after switching my Unifi setup to wpa3.

germinalphrase 18 hours ago

I'm not a network admin. Can anyone recommend a resource for establishing basic, solid Unifi configuration and security.

ram_rattle 1 day ago

This is supported by QC from 2017 I belive.

steelbrain 1 day ago

What is QC referring to here? I’d appreciate a quick liner, thanks!

brirec 22 hours ago

Probably Qualcomm, who makes Atheros chips

nemosaltat 4 days ago

Takes me back over a decade ago, working for a manufacturer that used a “Wi-Fi setup network” on many of their products, I started encountering early versions of “WIPS” (wireless intrusion prevention systems) that would leverage these deauth techniques in TIFA to prevent connection to rogue (read: our) Wi-Fi networks.

That might sound fine at first glance, so here’s a common scenario we’d have:

During a renovation on a high-rise building BigCorp that still occupies office space on that floor, is happily (unknowingly/uncaringly) spamming deauths and even spoofing our BSSID and to our field techs it would generally just look like “incorrect password”

I wrote a long internal bulletin about it, mostly geared towards helping our techs identifying the issue (with varying levels of networking knowledge) and getting to someone in IT to help.

This is the easy wire shark proof if you suspect it:

#filter for deauthentication frames `(wlan.fc.type == 0)&&(wlan.fc.type_subtype == 0x0c)` Especially looking for a reason code of 2 `Previous authentication no longer valid.`

jillyboel 23 hours ago

Is this actually legal to do? Sounds like jamming.

RedShift1 21 hours ago

Cisco wireless LAN controllers used to have this feature built in. In some release they removed it.