Talk:IEEE 802.1X

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking / Security Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: edit history watch purge Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

In "RFC 2284 has been obsoleted by RFC 3748", should 'obseleted' by replaced by 'superceded' ? I've not heard obseleted before, but I'm hesitant to replace it in case it has some specific/technical meaning here.

Yes, in IETF usage, "obsoleted" is the word that is used. E.g., RFC 3748 reads "This document obsoletes RFC 2284".Derek Balsam 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes (only) how a user is authenticated to a network. Although this is not part of the ieee802.1x standard, the authentication exchange will often establish a secret key (pairwise master key) between the authenticator and the supplicant. In the case of WPA, this key is later used to derive the keys used for encrypting the connection. I think it would be good to mention this, as it helps undestanding the relationship between 802.1x and other standards. What do others think? Jonas Wagner (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Be bold, but use sources. -- KelleyCook (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs information regarding 802.1X implementations for Unix systems (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Tru64, and others.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.84.165.11 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Linux based systems. --Rprpr (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do understand how this particular section is indirectly related to the topic, it seems to me as if a specific feature offered by network appliances that is not actually part of 802.1X itself seems a bit tangential and does not particularly contribute to the understanding of 802.1X. I propose that this section be removed; further input from others would be appreciated. Jonathan FarnhamJ 01:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not strike me as irrelevant. Perhaps it is misplaced. It actually points out a significant weakness of 802.1X. You create a potentially large security hole and/or administrative headache connecting devices to your network that don't support 802.1X. There are many such devices. -—Kvng 15:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this I understand-- however, in the example you give, it is the absence of 802.1X authentication in specific devices, rather than an issue with 802.1X itself that is the issue. Perhaps a "shortcomings" type of section might be good, with this particular facet included, however, it doesn't really fit into the Vulnerabilities section, and it definitely is misplaced where it currently is. Jonathan FarnhamJ 22:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is under a heading describing device support, and describes what happens when a device is not supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.86.46 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IEEE 802.1X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118212447/http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/network/PC62xx/en/CLI/PDF/cli_en.pdf to http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/network/pc62xx/en/CLI/PDF/cli_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"dot1x" is a common abbreviation, as is ".1X". If added to the main page does this require a reference? What is a suitable reference for this? Searching google shows many vendor pages using "dot1x". — Preceding unsigned comment added by K153 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]