For EDU, I think PPSK (private pre-shared key) is one future. Pretty much solves all the consumer device connection issues related to the alternatives, and provides easy over-the-air encryption.
That said, in a world where the average user/student doesn’t typically care about the security of their device’s WiFi connection when out in the world, why are we spending so much time trying to secure them for the four years they are here? Would treating them no differently than public-wifi be good enough and then call it a day? Jeff From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Tim Tyler <ty...@beloit.edu> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:17 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] EAP-PEAP risk/benefit assessment I think this is an excellent topic that has made me wonder. Given that so many users don’t secure their radius client profile, I have often thought mac address authentication might be a better option, but it would require a convenient registration method. If someone uses a man in the middle attack against a mac address, the consequences are minimal. If someone does it against usernames and password, they likely will have access to their other accounts as well. If people can on-board a full PEAP with certificate lock down solution, then it is the best. But if many of your clients are not getting the cert loaded and the client dependent on it, then it makes me wonder if mac address authentication isn’t better in the bigger picture of things. I am still using PEAP, but I am constantly thinking about mac address authentication. Tim From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Waldrep Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:58 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] EAP-PEAP risk/benefit assessment We acknowledged that many users are going to connect without using an on-boarding tool, and almost no one is going to secure their wireless profile manually. This leaves these users (on *all* platforms) open to a radius impersonation attack. Given this, we require a different password for network access. It's worth making a note of our security and business models (slightly over simplified, but sufficient for this topic). We treat ourselves as an ISP to our users. Everyone gets online with the same level of access. Our systems are secured at the server level. Guests self-register to access the network for a limited time. All this means that getting someone's network credentials means very little. If someone were doing something especially nefarious, using someone else's credentials would make it more difficult for us to find them. However, the attacker doesn't gain access to the compromised user's financial records, email, or anything else. -- Jonathan Waldrep Network Engineer Network Infrastructure and Services Virginia Tech On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Mike King <m...@mpking.com<mailto:m...@mpking.com>> wrote: Marcelo, If windows 7 is just 4%, what is your highest percentage? Windows 10, or something else? On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Marcelo Maraboli <marcelo.marab...@uc.cl<mailto:marcelo.marab...@uc.cl>> wrote: Hello David we did this last month and "secured" PEAP by minimizing the risk in Windows 7 clients. We used this guide and it worked very well. http://www.defenceindepth.net/2010/05/attacking-and-securing-peap.html We did not use "step 4" because it didn't leave the user ID in our AAA, they were all "anonymous". We also studied every operating system that connected to our WIFI and found out that Windows-7 is just 4%, so we hope this problem will die on it's own. Windows 10 can use PAP-TTLS, even though that is another deal. hope it helps. best regards, On 7/10/17 3:55 PM, LaPorte, David wrote: I was wondering if anyone has done a risk/benefit assessment of using EAP-PEAP in your environment. If so, would you be willing to share? We have a solid understanding of the security/usability tradeoffs that come with PEAP, but were hoping to not re-invent the wheel :) Thanks, Dave David LaPorte david_lapo...@harvard.edu<mailto:david_lapo...@harvard.edu> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. -- Marcelo Maraboli Rosselott Subdirector de Redes y Seguridad Dirección de Informática Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile http://informatica.uc.cl/ -- Campus San Joaquín, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul Santiago, Chile Teléfono: (56) 22354 1341 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
