Thanks a lot Jouni.<br>Yes; your check for determining WPA/TKIP configuration is stricter and better.<br><br>Best Regards,<br>Avinash.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jouni Malinen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:j@w1.fi" target="_blank">j@w1.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:42:07AM +0530, Avinash Patil wrote:<br>
> hostapd handles other WSC2.0 negative tests- e.g. disable WPS when WEP<br>
> encryption is set, disable WPS when BSS is configured as hidden network. So<br>
> I think its good to have this check in hostapd itself.<br>
<br>
</div>I would not count on hostapd enforcing all the UI or configuration<br>
requirements for WPS 2.0.. Anyway, I did apply this, but with some<br>
changes to make it match with the WSC 2.0 requirement, i.e., if WPA<br>
is enabled, WPA2/CCMP has to be enabled (e.g., WPA/CCMP would not be<br>
enough and neither would WPA/CCMP with WPA2/TKIP).<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
HostAP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HostAP@lists.shmoo.com">HostAP@lists.shmoo.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap" target="_blank">http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>