<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Security attacks on 802.1x in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107404#M22909</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The article in question talks about man-in-the-middle attacks that are possible even with 802.1x enabled.  The problem is that 802.1x does not provide two-way authentication or security association (rogue access-points).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't think that this type of problem is likely to be widely exploited, but it isn't fair to say that 802.1x makes your WLAN secure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:17:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>brian.carter</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-03-04T16:17:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107400#M22905</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I saw this from another mailing list.  We now have a many AP's installed at our HQ.  While the Cisco solution seemed to be the best solution when I started researching; how worried should I be now?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Did you see the new posting about the flaws in 802.1X?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Follow this link,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.linuxsecurity.com/articles/network_security_article-4457.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.linuxsecurity.com/articles/network_security_article-4457.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 05:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107400#M22905</guid>
      <dc:creator>l.crowder</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-05T05:58:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107401#M22906</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you looked at &lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/witc/ao350ap/prodlit/1327_pp.htm" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/pd/witc/ao350ap/prodlit/1327_pp.htm&lt;/A&gt;? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:05:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107401#M22906</guid>
      <dc:creator>b.speltz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-02-25T15:05:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107402#M22907</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;These two articles aren't related to the same vulnerability.  The U of M paper describes problems with the proposed 802.1x security features such as session-hijacking and man-in-the-middle attacks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As far as the risk or level of concern; the potential for serious damage is there, but this type of attack requires some effort and isn't likely to be seen outside of a contrived attack.  If you think your organization is at risk for targeted attacks, you might consider IPSEC over wireless or just don't use wireless at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:43:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107402#M22907</guid>
      <dc:creator>brian.carter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-02-28T14:43:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107403#M22908</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you enabled the MIC, WEP Key Hashing, LEAP using RADIUS, your WLAN is secure!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To enabled all security features you must upgrade to the latest NDIS, Firmwares, and ACU.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Audie&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:43:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107403#M22908</guid>
      <dc:creator>aonibala</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-02-28T15:43:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107404#M22909</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The article in question talks about man-in-the-middle attacks that are possible even with 802.1x enabled.  The problem is that 802.1x does not provide two-way authentication or security association (rogue access-points).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't think that this type of problem is likely to be widely exploited, but it isn't fair to say that 802.1x makes your WLAN secure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:17:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107404#M22909</guid>
      <dc:creator>brian.carter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-04T16:17:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Security attacks on 802.1x</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107405#M22910</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Allow me to clarify, WLAN is secure using Cisco LEAP (expensive), MIC, WEP Key Hashing, Dynamic Session Key, and Non-Broadcast SSID.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The ACS RADIUS authentication give two-way authentication, and MIC/WEP hashing/Dynamic Key Session will stop man-in-the-middle and session hijacking attacks.  I'm not even surprise if NSA can not break-in aside from brute force decrypting the 128-bit Dynamic Session Key.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Audie Onibala&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:26:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/security-attacks-on-802-1x/m-p/107405#M22910</guid>
      <dc:creator>aonibala</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-04T16:26:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

