I think that, as an experiment to see what the impact is, we should not have
ietf-legacy at IETF99.
The IETF is telling the word it’s important to use encryption, we should be
eating our own dog food.
On Jul 11, 2017, at 7:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter
On 12/07/2017 12:34, Randy Bush wrote:
the noc sees a quite large number of associations to the unencrypted
ietf-legacy ssid as opposed to say the encrypted ietf ssid
some of us are wondering if those using ietf-legacy
o do not realize it is completely unencrypted over the air, or
o don't care as their threat model sees runnin' nekkid over the air as
not a significant additional weakness, or
If you don't feel that way, there are millions of networks you can never
use, including most hotels, cafes etc.
o believe that they are using sufficient encryption at higher layers
to meet their needs, or
If you believe that, you're probably wrong ;-)
1) For whatever reason my Android 4.3 phone has always seemed allergic
to the ietf network (although after much torture, it agreed to connect
to eduroam). So it only knows about ietf-legacy and ietf-hotel.
2) On my laptop things are better, but I do have ietf-legacy lower in
the list as a fallback.
these days, some meetings do not provide unencrypted wifi at all and
seem not to get complaints. maybe their attendees are just geekier
and/or more security conscious.
...or they just don't care as long as it works. There's a lot of
Jordi is correct about the ordering of SSIDs in the list kept by the
o/s. If you don't manually push ietf-legacy down the list, it may well
be picked automatically.
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP