Talk:IEEE 802.11i-2004

links to IEEE 802.11i

Most of these links seem to point to the same specification under different names and links are broken. I could edit, but I'm not sure if there need to be textual changes. This needs a broader look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.12.103.131 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

nonce

nonce means child sexual offender in the UK, please don't use this word in the article. I haven't corrected it because I am not a cryptographer and don't know synonyms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.38.69 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it is an established term and it is linked to the nonce article where the different connotations are explained. I don't see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylke (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

UK cryptographers use "nonce". — Matt Crypto 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NOT WPA2

... 802.11i is NOT WPA2. (fixed)

and 'and supersedes the previous security specification, Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP),' ack, the previous standard was the 1999 version that included WEP, it was not WEP.

Should:

• fix 802.11i definition
• split of wep (new page)
• add 802.1x
• better eap coverage
• perhaps history / issues
• AEC-CCMP

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymble (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

802.1X has its own article and is already linked. Same goes for EAP and AES-CCMP. So those points shouldn't be there in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylke (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Diceware(tm) ???

'... at least 5 Diceware words ..' whose recomendation .. not IEEE or WiFi, Diceware seems obsucre and not the most user friendly. The usual characters and numbers advice would be better. Or ... link to a strong password page ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymble (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Devices implementing 802.11i

It only says that access points need firmware upgrade for implementing wpa2. This in not correct as wpa2 requires an extra processor because of the strong encryption. Consider re-write this section. (Implementing wpa would only require firmware update.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.81.237 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least one access point that adds WPA2 functionality by a fireware update. 68.39.174.238 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie, that's plain wrong. Software AES is not that heavy, only needs around twice process time of software RC4 and APs doing software RC4 are far from breaking a sweat.

Quote from AES page: "Unlike DES (the predecessor of AES), AES is a substitution-permutation network, not a Feistel network. AES is fast in both software and hardware, is relatively easy to implement, and requires little memory. As a new encryption standard, it is currently being deployed on a large scale." --212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[1 - 2] = ?

I may be missing it, but does this articel describe exactly what's changed from WPA -> WPA2? 68.39.174.238 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GTK?

One section of the page calls it a Group Temporal Key, and another the Groupwise Transient Key. Which is it? – Mussulma 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to IEEE 802.11i, Clause 4 (Abbreviations and acronyms), GTK == group temporal key – KYSoh 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What is RTM?

In IEEE_802.11i#Windows_Vista, what is RTM? Please add an appropriate Wikipedia link or expand it inline. 122.162.67.45 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Release to Manufacturing", I assume. See update to the page. Guy Harris 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WPA2-PSK

Thousands if not millions of wireless devices refer to a standard called "WPA2-PSK". PSK is not described in this article. A link and reference statement should be included in this article. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RSN...

"IEEE 802.11i enhances IEEE 802.11-1999 by providing a Robust Security Network (RSN) "

You're introducing a new word (which was made up for by the ieee 802 dudes) and using it at the same time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.173.122 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit about WPA2 Brute Force vulnerability

The people in this study just took a around 10 year old tool (Aircrack-ng) and used it in combination with modern hardware.

With that they are able to test predictable password like words or names. Or they would be able to find random passwords with 7 or less ASCII characters.

It absolutely no vulnerability if you can find stupid passwords. And that some britans can use a tool made for skiddies is as surprising as if a cow is mooing in Texas. --Fabiwanne (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Status unclear

The introduction says that this was an amendment to the 2004 version, and says that at least part of this was integrated in the 2007 version. What is the status of this standard: deprecated or still valid? And what is the link with robust security networks (RSNs), since it redirects to this page? – DokReggar (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)