Timeline for To sufficiently protect against KRACK is patching the client, the AP, or both, required?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2017 at 16:54 | history | edited | Ajedi32 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Note the difference that "what you need to patch" and "what you should patch"
|
| Oct 24, 2017 at 16:51 | comment | added | YLearn | Since there are nine client side CVEs, fixing five of them is not fixing the client side vulnerability, even if it does mitigate the worst of them. | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | @YLearn Such an update does already exist for some devices: w1.fi/cgit/hostap/commit/… I agree though, obviously patching everything is ideal, regardless of what work-arounds have been implemented on the access point. | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 16:44 | comment | added | YLearn | +1, nice catch of the update to the situation. However, I will also point out that just because there is work on an update that will protect clients as well doesn't mean that such work is going to be successful or if successful apply to all clients. Combined with the fact that most wireless devices will connect to multiple wireless networks in their lifetime, and the client patching should still be considered a priority. | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 14:01 | history | answered | Ajedi32 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |