On 13/10/2021 15:50, Máthé Koppány wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > Thanks for your fast and detailed answer. > > Could imagine my goal is something not allowed, or at least not the > standard way. However, I still wonder what other devices do for > achieving connection. Thought that this is just a limitation of the > ath9k, but maybe they do something like you suggest. > > From your hints, I'd look into: > [*] wonder why probing on DFS channels would be illegal? > My understanding was that this is prohibited only if there was no > beacon received from the AP before. > But if the client receives a beacon from the AP (no matter if it > contains a SSID or not) this shows that the channel is "clear" from > any radar signal, and that the client is allowed to send. > Is my understanding wrong? > > [**] would inspect the passive scanning code of ath9k, to see what my > possibilities are to implement the above. Could you indicate some code > to look into? I could not find it easily. Eventually, is some layer > above ath9k also influencing the passive scanning? > > Regards, > Koppany > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:30 AM Matthias May <matthias.may@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/11/21 12:46 PM, Máthé Koppány wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have a project where I want to establish Wi-Fi connection to a >>> hidden SSID, on DFS channel. >>> >>> I am running wpa_supplicant 2.9 on a device with: >>> "Linux 4.9.51-yocto-standard armv7l" and >>> "Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR958x 802.11abgn Wireless >>> Network Adapter (rev 01)" >>> >>> Sounds an old project, I know, but want to bring this alive, if >>> possible. Unfortunately, connection to a hidden SSID on DFS channel >>> seems not working. >>> >>> However, it works on a different, newer device, which has >>> "Linux raspberrypi 5.10.17-v7l+ armv7l" and >>> "PCI bridge: Broadcom Limited Device 2711 (rev 10)". >>> >>> The wpa_supplicant on the two devices is mostly idem: same v2.9, same >>> runtime configuration, almost all config variables (wpa_cli dump) >>> match (not seen relevant difference). There might be compile option >>> difference, but don't think they are relevant. >>> The only thing I see is with driver flags, where the newer device >>> supports flags like DFS_OFFLOAD, BSS_SELECTION, or >>> 4WWAY_HANDSHAKE_PSK, but the older device does not offer these. >>> >>> So I suspect the issue is due to some of the above missing features in >>> my ath9k driver (have default driver provided by kernel). >>> >>> Questions: >>> - is it possible to enable the above driver flags/features for ath9k? >>> If so, how to enable and are there patches for these? >>> - any hint where to look in ath9k driver for passive scanning >>> implementation? Is there another module/location where passive >>> scanning is implemented? >>> - any suggestions for a solution to my issue? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Koppany >>> >> >> Hi >> >> Clients not being able to find hidden APs on DFS frequencies is not a bug, but by design. >> >> Facts: >> * When enabling hidden SSID on an AP, the SSID is not sent in the beacons. >> * Clients (non-master devices) are not allowed to transmit on a DFS frequency unless an AP (master device) tells them it >> is ok. >> >> This means that a client can find new APs only by scanning passively. >> Since the beacons do not contain the SSID, the client will never find the AP it is looking for. >> >> Some ways around: >> * Your client is a master and does radar detection (with all its downsides), thus it is allowed to probe actively >> * You hack your beacons and add a custom SSID which allows the client to get the SSID passively (hack both sides) >> * Your device behaves illegal and sends probe requests on DFS frequencies >> * ??? >> >> BR >> Matthias >> Probing on a DFS frequency is not illegal per se. It is illegal for a slave device which is not performing radar detection. Take a look at https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301800_301899/301893/02.01.01_60/en_301893v020101p.pdf > 4.2.6.1.4 DFS operation > Slave devices: > a) A slave device shall not transmit before receiving an appropriate enabling signal from an associated master device. Simply receiving beacons is not enough. You have to be *associated* to a master device (AP) to be allowed to probe actively. We implemented option 2 (custom beacon IE) for our devices, because we control both sides of the connection. This doesn't work with 3rd party devices, but that is not an issue for us. Anyone with a sniffer can see the custom SSID, we use it mostly to reduce the number of random mobile phones from connecting. It's not a feature that provides any security whatsoever anyway, but more for convenience. As to why some of the newer devices are able to connect: IMO they they either perform radar detection, or are illegal. Performing radar detection as a slave device has the downside, that if you detect radar, this frequency is blocked for the NOP time (30 minutes), even if there are other master devices that would tell you otherwise. BR Matthias
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
