WPA_Supplicant

GPz1100

@AiC0315

What's the result of wpa_cli status in shell?

It should look something like this.

AiC0315

@GPz1100
Thanks,
I will take a look when I am able to install 2.7.0 back on my machine.

stephenw10

@AiC0315 said in WPA_Supplicant:

Yes, I used the wpa_supplicant file posted in the dslreports post

Yes I meant did you try the default wpa_supplicant version that's included in 2.7?

zC

@GPz1100 said in WPA_Supplicant:

@stephenw10 ^^I believe it was 23.09 that introduced the new openssl.

It's unclear why the OP was unsuccessful with 2.70, given it does include the vlan0 patched wpa_supplicant with the same wpa_supplicant.conf

@AiC0315 said in WPA_Supplicant:

Failed to connect to non-global ctrl_ifname: (nil) error: No such file or directory

This error suggests a missing conf parameter in wpa_supplicant.conf, specifically

ctrl_interface=DIR=/var/run/wpa_supplicant

This goes ABOVE the "network={" array.

What about

Failed to connect to non-global ctrl-ifname: (nil) error: Success

AiC0315

@stephenw10

Here is the output of wpa_cli status:

Selected interface 'igb0'
bssid=01:80:c2:00:00:03
freq=0
ssid=
id=0
mode=station
pairwise_cipher=NONE
group_cipher=NONE
key_mgmt=IEEE 802.1X (no WPA)
wpa_state=ASSOCIATED
address=
Supplicant PAE state=HELD
suppPortStatus=Unauthorized
EAP state=FAILURE
uuid=59fbef4f-

this was using the wpa_supplicant in 2.7.0.

henryzhou

Sorry for reopen such an old thread.
I'm running 24.03 but my eap tls authentication always failed.

My wpa_supplicant.conf is the same as the op (except the mac address)
I'm using the system build-in wpa_supplicant.

henryzhou

I also tried 23.09.1 and got the same result.
wpa_cli status shows
wpa_state=associated
supplicant pae state=held
suppPortStatus=Unauthorized
EAP state=FAILURE

Same certificate set works on Mikrotik.
I've checked the identity mac address which are the same.

Please help, it really drives me crazy

stephenw10

You are also trying to connect to AT&T?

henryzhou

@stephenw10 Yes, AT&T U-verse fiber. I confirm it's gpon not xgspon.

I also notice that the system has two wpa_supplicant. one is under /usr/sbin, the other under /usr/local/sbin. Both are version 2.10 and both failed the 1x authentication.

The system was originally running CE 2.7.2 and then upgrade to 23.09.1/24.03.

GPz1100

@henryzhou https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/18jz0uc/installing_att_bypass_on_a_clean_install_of/

Follow the guide above. Additional settings are needed as pfsense 24.03 (and possibly earlier) uses openssl 3.0. Att's certs do not meet the minimum security standards so weaker ciphers must be allowed.

stephenw10

@GPz1100 said in WPA_Supplicant:

Att's certs do not meet the minimum security standards

Nice!

henryzhou

@GPz1100 Thank you so much.

After adding openssl_ciphers=DEFAULT@SECLEVEL=0 to my wpa_supplicant.conf and set OPENSSL_CONF to a customized config file it works.

I do appreciate your help. All of you.

GPz1100

@stephenw10 said in WPA_Supplicant:

Nice!

Don't shoot the messenger :). Technically, these certs are for internal use. I suppose these could be updated via firmware, but like most things att, doing so will probably create more damage than it solves.

Eventually gpon/eapol may fade away in favor of xgs and newer technologies.

henryzhou

one more thing, does pfsense plus provide a better integration with wpa_supplicant (instead of shellcmd/earlyshellcmd)? I notice this doc https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/authbridge.html but it basically focuses on bridging the ATT router with pfsense.

GPz1100

@henryzhou Depends on your use case. Most of us want the att box out of the path entirely. The recipe does the equivalent mode of using netgraph in proxy mode.

Im making use of earlyshell/shell cmd as outlined in the reddit link. We experimented last June (2023) in the discord group with different variations and found that to work best. The info's a bit scattered; poster on reddit did a good job of organizing it all.

It's unclear if you're using an external ont or gone the full fiber--> sfp route. In either even the wpa portion remains the same, just the interfaces change slightly - depending on which stick you use. Some sticks (odi dfp-34x-2c2 or equiv) require passing of a specific vlan to the firewall, others handle all the vlan internally (fs.com/lantiq modules). The wpa part however remains bound to the parent interface, not the vlan.

henryzhou

@GPz1100 For my pfsense plus setup, i use the external ONT. Because the device (N100) i'm running pfsense plus doesn't have sfp.

The only complain I have against shellcmd is it creates a small delay between the public ip is issued through DHCP and the routing rule setup. So in a short period, the device has the public ip but not being able to access internet.

stephenw10

Only when it first connects I assume?

@GPz1100 said in WPA_Supplicant:

Don't shoot the messenger :)

Indeed my eyeroll is firmly in AT&T's direction.

GPz1100

@henryzhou It's really been a none issue. Somewhere around 23.x (I think), the boot timing/sequences got changed a bit. There used to be an issue with the interface getting dropped between early on and by the time it got to "configuring wan....", effectively breaking wpa. This has not been the case since.

And if there is any delay, not a big deal. The system is rebooted once every few months or less.

henryzhou

@GPz1100 Yes, it's not really an issue but my OCD.