I think that, as an experiment to see what the impact is, we should not have ietf-legacy at IETF99. The IETF is telling the word it’s important to use encryption, we should be eating our own dog food. Bob > On Jul 11, 2017, at 7:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/07/2017 12:34, Randy Bush wrote: >> the noc sees a quite large number of associations to the unencrypted >> ietf-legacy ssid as opposed to say the encrypted ietf ssid >> >> some of us are wondering if those using ietf-legacy >> >> o do not realize it is completely unencrypted over the air, or >> >> o don't care as their threat model sees runnin' nekkid over the air as >> not a significant additional weakness, or > > If you don't feel that way, there are millions of networks you can never > use, including most hotels, cafes etc. > >> o believe that they are using sufficient encryption at higher layers >> to meet their needs, or > > If you believe that, you're probably wrong ;-) > >> o other > > 1) For whatever reason my Android 4.3 phone has always seemed allergic > to the ietf network (although after much torture, it agreed to connect > to eduroam). So it only knows about ietf-legacy and ietf-hotel. > > 2) On my laptop things are better, but I do have ietf-legacy lower in > the list as a fallback. > >> these days, some meetings do not provide unencrypted wifi at all and >> seem not to get complaints. maybe their attendees are just geekier >> and/or more security conscious. > > ...or they just don't care as long as it works. There's a lot of > that about. > > Jordi is correct about the ordering of SSIDs in the list kept by the > o/s. If you don't manually push ietf-legacy down the list, it may well > be picked automatically. > > Brian >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP