Microsoft and Wireless Authentication

An anonymous reader writes: "Microsoft's been working on a new, secure authentication standard for 802.11b called PEAP. [ed. note: it's a draft standard] Cisco already offers secure authentication for their own wireless gear with LEAP, and did an outstanding job of making this capability available for Linux and OS/X, as well as for Windows. My question is, since PEAP is dependent upon the Windows EAP-TLS infrastructure, are Linux and OS/X going to be left out in the cold as this new standard is pushed by MS? Sifry's has some good commentary and links. Opensource wireless hackers, are you working on this?"

Comments

What's there to work on?

[srwalter]

I think the more logical approach is rather to more thoroughly develop the existing standing LEAP. Just because MS made a new standard doesn't mean that everyone has to use it.

Seems to me it is a much more efficient use of man-power to just ignore it; maybe it will go away. I don't see why Cisco would invest their time in money in making themselves compatible to a competing technology. The only one who benefits from it is MS, therefore, they should be the only ones to use it. And if they /are/ the only ones to use it, it doesn't even benefit them.

Easy security out of the box

[InnovATIONS]

That appears to be the real challenge for the wireless vendors. This is perhaps the thing about the article that I agree with the most.

I see all these wireless hubs being sold at consumer electronics stores because they are simpler than wired networks and I think 'is someone who regards plugging CAT5 cables into a hub to be 'too complicated' going to be able to set up any security that is not completely out of the box? These are so wide open they might as well include in the box a warchalking decal to stick on your front window.

The funny thing is that if the wireless hub vendors DID get their act together on this then easy security would be a feature that would resonate strongly with the average consumer.

Remember how long the auto industry argued that requiring airbags in cars would kill auto sales?

RTFA - Better title would have been - New Standard

[puto]

There are six other contributors to the Project. Microsoft and Cisco are there and while they are two mighty large behemoths in the industry there are several other people and orginizations with their eggs in the basket too.

The ed copy almost urges us to pour wood on the MS sacrificial pyre.

Any large outfit with software, hardware, anything do do with networking is gonna have their fingers in this pie. And MS or Cisco would have not been idiots to get on it. And both companied can put money and people on the case.

MS realizes UNIX(Linux)is a force and although they do not like, know they must coexist. The days of MS thinking they could destory us or over. But every crusade needs its zealots, and us on the Nix have em.

Hey if MS can do something to secure the MS networks I have to support, and it contributes to the community. Take their money, develop it, and we all benefit from it. I might get a weekend off.

Just a draft for a project with multiple backers. But is has MS in it so lets skew the editorial comment.

Truth in Journalism is hard to come by we all have learned to read between the lines.

We read the slashdot cause it compiles info from sources on the web we do not have go looking for. Neither time nor inclination. But referencing someone elses work, and then putting a slant on it is something else. It is cheesy. If you want to spin, learn to spin. Sometimes the articles here have all the intelligence of liner notes from 80's hair bands.

Puto