Talk:Wi-Fi Protected Access
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wi-Fi Protected Access article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Attacks on WPA
I'd like to query this:
- However, it is not perfect; attacks remain feasible against RC4, even with large key and IV sizes.
Chop out DiceWare
The references to Diceware seem totally out of place in this section. Diceware never appears in the IEEE standards, it is not a well adopted mechanism. The DiceWare 'strength' is used in place of the WiFi Alliance recommended practices and the abiity to use 64 char hex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What's all the 'hey look apple support wpa2' promotion doing in this wiki ? I don't think it's wise to build up a list with compatible devices.
Clarify intro paragraph
"... security protocols and security certification programs... to secure wireless computer networks"
For someone not knowing anything about WPA/WEP already, the intro paragraph does not really help them. What is "secure" referring to? Authentication? Encryption of all traffic? Something else?
- This is a common mistake of writers at every level of topical competence. With modern hyperlinking options, all technical terms and jargon should be easily linked to the relevant definitions, and at least the introduction(s) to every such article should be conscientiously written for two or more defined target audiences of expected familiarity or topical literacy. This approach does not take a lot of work, and the effort can dramatically improve your own thinking about how you present & express your ideas. JRB184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)