starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Wireless Authentication allows PSK on Enterprise Type #5645

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:30:36 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:36 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sdktr on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021).

NetBox version

v3.1-beta

Python version

3.9

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create new wireless LAN with Authentication Type: WPA Enterprise and PSK: 1337

image

Expected Behavior

No PSK to be allowed when WPA Enterprise is chosen. WPA Enterprise dictates (?) the usage of a Radius backend to relay the EAP messages to. This authentication replaces the PreSharedKey.

Would be cool to model the actual radius backend used in this model. With a relation to a Service (property of device)?

Observed Behavior

PSK can be stored irrespective of the Authentication Type

Originally created by @sdktr on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021). ### NetBox version v3.1-beta ### Python version 3.9 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create new wireless LAN with Authentication Type: WPA Enterprise and PSK: 1337 ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/19833687/141155121-15724e09-d346-4196-bee4-bab05cefe77c.png) ### Expected Behavior No PSK to be allowed when WPA Enterprise is chosen. WPA Enterprise dictates (?) the usage of a Radius backend to relay the EAP messages to. This authentication replaces the PreSharedKey. Would be cool to model the actual radius backend used in this model. With a relation to a Service (property of device)? ### Observed Behavior PSK can be stored irrespective of the Authentication Type
adam added the type: bugbeta labels 2025-12-29 19:30:36 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:30:36 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@andershagman commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021):

There is "identity PSK" through RADIUS.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-5/b_Identity_PSK_Feature_Deployment_Guide.html

@andershagman commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021): There is "identity PSK" through RADIUS. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-5/b_Identity_PSK_Feature_Deployment_Guide.html
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021):

@andershagman that's true, though I'd expect we'd convey that in a field separate from the PSK field on the WLAN model since it has a different function. We don't currently model any RADIUS config, though it's certainly possible that it will be added in a future release.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021): @andershagman that's true, though I'd expect we'd convey that in a field separate from the PSK field on the WLAN model since it has a different function. We don't currently model any RADIUS config, though it's certainly possible that it will be added in a future release.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021):

There is "identity PSK" through RADIUS.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-5/b_Identity_PSK_Feature_Deployment_Guide.html

Hm, based on this doc this iPSK is configured as a regular PSK in the wlan controller, but with additional AAA override settings. In that case it is a valid combination after all.

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021): > There is "identity PSK" through RADIUS. > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-5/b_Identity_PSK_Feature_Deployment_Guide.html Hm, based on this doc this iPSK is configured as a regular PSK in the wlan controller, but with additional AAA override settings. In that case it is a valid combination after all.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021):

Huh, ok. So keep allowing it then?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021): Huh, ok. So keep allowing it then?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021):

Doesn't feel logical, but appearantly prohibiting the combo is not matching real world configs as well. So I guess keep as is?

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2021): Doesn't feel logical, but appearantly prohibiting the combo is not matching real world configs as well. So I guess keep as is?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label beta type: bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#5645
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?