Archive

Posts Tagged ‘aruba’

Hunting down the cost factors in the cloud Wi-Fi management plane

October 3rd, 2013

 

Mature cloud Wi-Fi offerings have gone through few phases already. They started with bare-bones device configuration from the cloud console and over the years matured into meaty management plane for complete Wi-Fi access, security and complementary services in the cloud.

CostAlongside these phases of evolution, optimizing the cost of operation of the cloud backend has always been important consideration. It is critical for cloud operators and Managed Service Providers (MSPs). This cost dictates what end users pay for cloud Wi-Fi services and whether attractive pricing models (like AirTight’s Opex-only model) can be viable in the long run. It is also important to the bottom line of the cloud operator/MSP.

Posed with the cost question, one would impulsively say that cost is driven by the capacity in terms of number of APs that can be managed from a staple of compute resource in the cloud. That is an important cost contributor, but not the only one!

Read more…

Cloud computing , , , , , ,

A tale of the two WLAN controllers, do we need to be chasing our tail for the WLAN security?

January 31st, 2012

Right when the Wi-Fi access and security management are moving towards the controller-less architecture, another interesting architecture seems to have evolved at the other extreme. This architecture seems to be advocating not one, but two WLAN controllers in tandem – and that too from two different vendors. And, some optional (additional?) security management servers on top of the tandem. You think I am kidding? Then check this announcement from Aruba Networks, which is a leading controller-based WLAN vendor: http://www.arubanetworks.com/solutions/by-application/byod-services-on-your-existing-wi-fi/. The stated business case seems to be to put a band-aid on the Cisco WLAN’s (another leading controller-based WLAN vendor) insufficient security features.

In this case, the tandem is only for BYOD security, but as a matter of fact there are many more security gaps that will still remain to be addressed even after the twin tandem controllers are deployed. Would we need a third WLAN controller in the tandem to fill the remaining security gap, and who might provide that? Or, is it just easier to deploy a controller-less comprehensive WIPS solution (and that too with the onsite or cloud option) and secure the Cisco WLAN once and for all. Just a practical thought.

Wireless security , , , , ,

Skyjacking attack – then Cisco, now Aruba?

July 18th, 2011

Skyjacking Cisco WLC Aruba Mobility Controller AirWave Wi-Fi WIPSRecall “Skyjacking” vulnerability discovered with Cisco LAPs couple of years ago? It allowed hacker to transfer control of enterprise Cisco LAPs from enterprise WLC to hacker controlled WLC in the Internet with over-the-air attack. Once control is transferred, the hacker could change configuration on those LAPs in any way by adding, deleting and modifying SSIDs. The hacker could also tamper with Cisco monitor mode APs and take away the security layer. Cisco Skyjacking exploited vulnerability in Cisco’s over-the-air controller discovery protocol. Know more about it here 

Now a similar vulnerability seems to have been discovered in Aruba OS and AirWave console. The advisory states: “[a]n attacker could plant an AP with maliciously crafted SSID in the general vicinity of the wireless LAN and might trigger a XSS vulnerability in reporting section of the ArubaOS and AirWave WebUIs. This vulnerability could potentially be used to execute commands on the controller with admin credentials.” Though modus operandi is different from Cisco, the end result is similar – transferring the control of Wi-Fi controller to hacker by launching over-the-air attack.

No system is free from vulnerabilities and such things will continue to be discovered. But, you don’t have to give away “hack one, get one free”. You don’t have to give hackers control of Wi-Fi coverage and Wi-Fi security in a single shot. This can be achieved by ensuring that the Wi-Fi security layer operates independent of Wi-Fi infrastrucutre.  Read more…

Wireless security , , ,