Search
WPA2 Key Reinstallation Vulnerabilities (KRACK) Explained
Posted by Hemant Chaskar on Oct 16, 2017
WPA2 Vulnerability.png

Researchers from the University of Leuven (@vanhoefm and team) have discovered flaws in WPA2 implementation in clients and APs. These flaws create vulnerabilities for replay and decryption attacks on packets transferred over WiFi links. They have named them KRACKs (Key Reinstallation AttaCKs). Both 802.1x (EAP) and PSK (password) based networks are affected. These vulnerabilities have been cataloged under 10 CVEs. In the series of videos below, I explain these CVEs in detail with Vivek Ramachandran, Founder and CEO of Pentester Academy.

Posts by Topic

see all
free-on-demand-webinars.png
Aerohive, Aruba, Cisco, Meraki, and Ruckus Let Users Suffer with Interference
Posted by Robert Ferruolo (Dr. RF) on May 11, 2017

How often do you say “Wow, this WiFi is great!”? WiFi is like a utility, you take it for granted until the lights don’t turn on or water doesn’t come out of the tap. Just like the electrical grid or the water infrastructure, WiFi takes planning to implement correctly and maintenance to keep running smoothly.

The great news is that WiFi keeps getting smarter and Mojo is leading the way with Cognitive WiFi™. An example of our dedication to excellent user experience is how the C-130 uses its third radio and Dynamic Channel Selection (DCS) to quickly, reliably, and automatically detect disruptive interference.

We recently performed a benchmark test to see how well access points avoided channels with high WiFi and non-WiFi interference on boot up and during operation. We evaluated how well the AP avoided interference and how user experience was impacted.

The Mojo C-130 was the only access point to avoid interference 100% of the time, on both boot up and when introduced on the operating channel. All other solutions failed to avoid a channel with a constant interference source that made the channel unusable, or failed to change channels when the channel utilization got so high that it severely impacted the user experience.

User experience was evaluated using the following quality score rating system: