Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A flaw in WPS is that you can crack each half of the 8 numerical digits independently (2x 4 numerical digits are much easier than 1x 8 numerical digits).

However, since the flaw was discovered, why not apply a patch and only send a response if and only if the client has the whole password right? Implement a time-out and your router is secure for the next 1,000 years.

But why is the hole still open?

share|improve this question

Ask the WiFi Alliance.

It's probably the same reason the glaringly-obvious security hole was put in there in the first place. The people making decisions for WPS standard apparently do not care about security (or are mindbogglingly incompetent). Any freshman CS student giving it the least bit of thought will know its a mistake to check whether half of a password works and differentiate between which half failed in your response as described in your standard (so you don't even need to do a timing attack to differentiate the two cases). The only reason it was not immediately obvious to everyone when WPS-enabled routers first came out is that the standard documenting how WPS works is not free ($100) if you aren't a member (and membership costs a company $15k/year).

Granted, I believe many (most?) hardware manufacturers tried to patch WPS by just rate-limiting the number of bad attempts per second -- granted rate-limiting doesn't help much when you only need at most 11000 attempts to break a WPS pin (on average half of that). At the same time, presumably legitimate users may want to use this WPS feature, so they probably can't rate limit too severely and you can possibly get around the rate-limit by frequently changing your MAC address. WPS was a bad idea which became much worse with their actual severely flawed implementation.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.