Is there even an alternative to captive portals?
Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.
>Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.
Travelers don't typically have gigabytes of bandwidth to spare. I for one like having unmetered internet access even when there's theoretically internet access available through roaming (absurdly expensive) or esims (expensive)
The reality is that nobody wants to bother with any of that.
Either just connect me to the internet without extra steps, or don't at all. Don't waste my time.
I don't either, but for IT departments in large organizations, ignoring the legal department isn't an option.
Configure your access points to use RADIUS or SAML for auth?
As for importing a private CA. Use a certificate trusted by a public CA and you won't have this problem?
From an access control perspective, it probably doesn't matter much for a coffee shop, but matters more for something for a hotel where you want to limit to certain guests only (eg. ones with room or loyalty program members)
From a legal perspective, having an interstitial might provide cover for when a baddie uses the connection to order drugs or whatever. IANAL and I'm not sure whether it's actually needed or not, but most companies rather not risk it. Moreover it's unlikely that no jurisdictions require it, so you'd still support for it.
>As for importing a private CA. Use a certificate trusted by a public CA and you won't have this problem?
No idea. Last time I had to use WPA enterprise, the organization providing the connection isn't exactly small and couldn't afford a certificate, but still required me to import a CA. That makes me think it might be an inherent issue with WPA enterprise.
.... Is this meant to be a joke?
> still required me to import a CA
It's reasonably likely that they wanted it to only work on known devices with their private CA cert installed; but either way, and regardless of the technology in question, I wouldn't suggest it's particularly meaningful to use one organisation's setup as the basis for how things inherently work.
Are you a lawyer? I wasn't making a definitive statement, but if you have stronger evidence to the contrary please present them rather than making shallow dismissals.
>It's reasonably likely that they wanted it to only work on known devices with their private CA cert installed
It's an organization where BYOD is very common.
The right flavour of incompetence might get you there without bad intentions but really if you give someone the capability of eavesdropping you have to behave as if they're intending to use it
[1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1317320/how-can-i-automatica...
[2] https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Encryption_and_Authentic...
So not everyone. Actually a decent number of people that don't.