stass11221 / reaver-wps

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/reaver-wps
0 stars 0 forks source link

Handling duplicate packets / responses #184

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
1.4 Works good with my rt3070.

but due to some unsolved duplicate packet bugs in rt2800usb, it may retry the 
same pin like this:

[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M1 message ---this is duplicated
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[!] WPS transaction failed (code: 0x03), re-trying last pin

(then retry the same pin.)

the duplicate Mx message leads to failed trial.

Expected:
Ignore the duplicate packet(caused by rt2800usb driver), continue the 
transaction.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by fcs...@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 8:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Duplicate packets can happen for one of two reasons:

1) The AP didn't receive the last packet Reaver sent (corrupted data, 
interference, etc). This is usually due to poor signal strength or interference 
at the AP's location.
2) Some APs spam the WPS transaction (i.e., they'll keep sending a bunch of M1 
packets until they see the M2 packet from Reaver).

If you are seeing a lot of these types of failures, you can tell Reaver to not 
close the transaction when it sees duplicate packets by specifying the 
--no-nacks argument. However, this won't help much if the AP is re-sending 
packets because of poor signal strength.

Original comment by cheff...@tacnetsol.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 3:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I am also using 1.4 and a rt2800usb stick. I have patched my driver and can use 
all aircrack functions without issue.

With wash I need to use --ignore-fcs
With reaver association is non-existant. Locking on to the AP with aireplay-ng 
--fakeauth works fine. --no-nacks --no-associate has allowed me to start 
testing.

It seems that at least for me ALL the APs in range of my house need those 
options, but I am actually letting reaver run against my own equipment.

[+] Trying pin 01785678
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[!] WARNING: Receive timeout occurred
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Sending M4 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK
[+] Trying pin 01795677
[+] Sending EAPOL START request
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received identity request
[+] Sending identity response
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Sending M2 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M1 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Sending M4 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received M3 message
[+] Received WSC NACK
[+] Sending WSC NACK

Original comment by weedy2...@gmail.com on 26 May 2012 at 1:42