Survey of the security risks of Wi-Fi networks based on the information elements of beacon and probe response frames
Open accessAbstract
Wi-Fi networks have become prevalent in homes, businesses, and public places. Wi-Fi is one of the most common means that people use to access digital services like Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, email, and even payment platforms. Equipment for deploying Wi-Fi networks is affordable and its basic features are easy to manipulate. In many cases Wi-Fi users do not even have to buy any communication equipment, since Wi-Fi routers are installed by internet service providers (ISP) in the premises of their customers. Wi-Fi equipment, owned either by end users or ISP companies, should be configured as securely as possible to avoid potential attacks. The security capabilities and features of Wi-Fi routers and access points are inserted into beacon and probe response frames. Potential attackers can use sniffing tools like Wireshark to capture these frames and extract information about security features to discover vulnerabilities. In order to assess the security risks of Wi-Fi networks we conducted a survey in which we used Wireshark to capture the traffic from several Wi-Fi networks, and then through a filter we selected the beacon and probe response frames to analyze the security information elements carried by those frames. We came to the conclusion that despite technical recommendations, some security parameters and options are still set in a way that makes networks more prone to attacks. With this paper we want the readers to be aware of the security risks of their Wi-Fi networks, even the ones set up by their internet service providers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Around 87% of analyzed routers do not comply with PMF standards.
“A new survey on Wi-Fi security risks presented in (Reyes et al., 2020) critically points out that around 87% of analyzed routers do not comply with PMF standards.”
From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Reyes et al., 2020
The WiFi Protected Access section (p. 5) reports that 87.8% of surveyed access points lacked management-frame protection capability, supporting the approximate percentage. It does not say that those devices failed to comply with PMF standards; lack of capability is a narrower finding. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPMF cannot protect legacy Wi-Fi devices operating on TKIP to cope with their low-computing resources.
“PMF cannot protect legacy Wi-Fi devices operating on TKIP to cope with their low-computing resources”
From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Reyes et al., 2020
In “WiFi Protected Access” (p. 5), the paper says that only PMF-capable stations can associate when PMF is required. It also says TKIP may be retained for legacy devices, but it does not establish that all legacy devices using TKIP lack PMF support or attribute that limitation to low computing resources. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReyes et al. 2020 survey shows that more than 50% of analyzed devices employ WPA-TKIP.
“A recent (Sept 2020) survey on Wi-Fi network issues conducted in (Reyes et al., 2020) critically shows that more than 50 % of analyzed devices employ WPA-TKIP.”
From Multi-Channel Man-in-the-Middle attacks against protected Wi-Fi networks: A state of the art review (2022) · cites this paper as Reyes et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [6][6] M. Koziol, 'Wi-Fi Gets More Secure: Everything You Need to Know About WPA3,' IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News , 06-Sep-2018. [Online]. Available: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/everythingyou-need-to-know-about-wpa3. [Accessed: 27-Mar-2019]. -
- Authors
- Reyes-Moncayo, H. I., Malaver- Mendoza, L. D., & Ochoa-Murillo, A. L.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de los Llanos (CO)
- Venue
- Scientia et technica
- Published
- 2020-09-30
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 351-357
- ISSN
- 0122-1701 (ISSN-L)
- 2344-7214
- OpenAlex
- W3089997531
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientia et technica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Scientia et technica (publishedVersion)
- Revistas Universidad Technologica de Pereira (Universidad Technologica de Pereira) (submittedVersion)
- Scientia et technica (Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Wireless Networks and Protocols
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Cybersecurity and Information Systems
- Keywords
- Wi-Fi network security, beacon frames, Wi-Fi access points, network vulnerability, Internet service provider networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
