Unencrypted Beacons on Initialisation

[Jonny Milliken]

>Is there some specific reason of using quite old version of OpenWRT? The
>builds I use do seem to use  quite recent snapshot of hostapd from the
>development branch, i.e., much newer than 0.6.6..

For our application we wanted to balance size of the image with
functionality. Some of the devices we are working with do not have the
capacity to run, for example, OpenWRT Backfire. Even then we had to strip
Kamikaze down quite a bit to get our own stuff on there as well as the
necessary packages.

We're sure the latest version for Backfire is much more up to date, but
again we couldnt get that to compile into Kamikaze.

>What kind of issues did you have? Anyway, I would use the hostap.git
>development branch version rather than 0.7.3 which is already quite
>old..

The major problem was trying to identify which patch would work for
updating driver_madwifi.c driver. I've included the log from make in the
link below if you'd be inclined to take a look?

http://pastebin.com/ybGHUdrE

>I would move to the latest OpenWRT release.. It is difficult to justify
>spending more time on backporting non-critical fixes to hostapd 0.6.x.

Unfortunately Backfire is off the cards, but we appreciate this is very far
from critical. We'd happily do the heavy lifting ourselves, but we've no
real idea where to start without combing through each file in hostapd.
Managing to get the newest version of hostapd on Kamikaze would seem the
quickest solution, then we could just apply the patch.

On 22 March 2012 16:44, Jouni Malinen <j at w1.fi> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:52:20PM +0000, Jonny Milliken wrote:
> > Cheers for the suggestion. The reason we are using 0.6.6 is because it is
> > the most recent version compiled for OpenWRT. There is a more recent
> > version number (0.6.9) but it was not the most recently updated. Also it
> > exhibits the same problem.
>
> Is there some specific reason of using quite old version of OpenWRT? The
> builds I use do seem to use  quite recent snapshot of hostapd from the
> development branch, i.e., much newer than 0.6.6..
>
> > We couldnt get the very latest hostapd (v0.7.3) to compile for mips.
>
> What kind of issues did you have? Anyway, I would use the hostap.git
> development branch version rather than 0.7.3 which is already quite
> old..
>
> > The
> > patch mentioned does appear to address the problem we are seeing but the
> > diff'd files are not the same. We have manually cludged the seemingly
> > appropriate functions in beacon.c, hostapd.h and wps_hostapd.c in 0.6.6
> but
> > the changes didnt seem to stop the leaked beacons.
> >
> > Any other suggestions or have we just hit an impasse?
>
> I would move to the latest OpenWRT release.. It is difficult to justify
> spending more time on backporting non-critical fixes to hostapd 0.6.x.
>
> --
> Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA
> _______________________________________________
> HostAP mailing list
> HostAP at lists.shmoo.com
> http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/hostap/attachments/20120322/76bc7097/attachment.htm