Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

CWNP CWSP-208 Exam - Topic 1 Question 12 Discussion

What drawbacks initially prevented the widespread acceptance and use of Opportunistic Key Caching (OKC)?
B) Because OKC is not defined by any standards or certification body, client support was delayed and sporadic early on.
A) Sharing cached keys between controllers during inter-controller roaming created vulnerabilities that exposed the keys to attackers.
C) Key exchanges during fast roams required processor-intensive cryptography, which was prohibitive for legacy devices supporting only TKIP.
D) The Wi-Fi Alliance continually delayed the creation of a client certification for OKC, even though it was defined by IEEE 802.11r.

CWNP CWSP-208 Exam - Topic 1 Question 12 Discussion

Actual exam question for CWNP's CWSP-208 exam
Question #: 12
Topic #: 1
[All CWSP-208 Questions]

What drawbacks initially prevented the widespread acceptance and use of Opportunistic Key Caching (OKC)?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Denny at Nov 23, 2025, 02:38 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CWSP-208 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Maia
3 months ago
Overall, A and B seem like the main issues for me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brigette
3 months ago
D is frustrating. Delays in certification hurt adoption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lera
3 months ago
C is a problem for older devices. They can't handle it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amber
3 months ago
But B makes sense too. Lack of standards slowed things down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wayne
3 months ago
Agreed, sharing keys can lead to serious vulnerabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Renea
4 months ago
I think option A is a big concern. Security is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Domonique
4 months ago
B) and D) together really stalled OKC's rollout.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willie
4 months ago
Wait, D) really? I thought the Wi-Fi Alliance was on it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashton
5 months ago
C) was a major issue, legacy devices just couldn't keep up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamella
5 months ago
Totally agree with B), no standards really held things back.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
5 months ago
A) is spot on, those vulnerabilities were a big deal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julieta
5 months ago
Processor-intensive crypto, that's a real killer for old hardware. C is the winner.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carylon
5 months ago
Haha, the Wi-Fi Alliance must have been sleeping on the job with option D!
upvoted 0 times
...
Cordelia
5 months ago
C is the correct answer. Legacy devices couldn't handle the crypto overhead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathrine
6 months ago
I agree, option B makes sense. Lack of standards would delay adoption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glendora
6 months ago
I feel like the delays from the Wi-Fi Alliance were a significant factor too. It’s frustrating when certification processes hold back technology like OKC.
upvoted 0 times
...
Roslyn
6 months ago
I think the lack of standards played a big role in delaying client support. It seems like every time I looked into OKC, there were issues with compatibility.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
6 months ago
I remember reading about how sharing cached keys could lead to vulnerabilities, but I'm not sure if that was the main reason for the slow adoption of OKC.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
6 months ago
Ugh, this is the kind of question I struggle with. All these technical details about Wi-Fi protocols and certifications - it's just not my strong suit. I'll have to take my best guess and hope for the partial credit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chauncey
6 months ago
I feel pretty confident about this one. The key seems to be identifying the main reasons why OKC wasn't widely adopted at first, like the lack of standards and client support. I think I can narrow this down to the best answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolande
7 months ago
Okay, I've got a strategy here. I need to carefully read through each option and think about how those factors could have impacted the early acceptance of OKC. Gotta make sure I understand the technical concepts involved.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shaun
7 months ago
Option A seems plausible. Sharing keys could definitely create vulnerabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annice
7 months ago
I vaguely recall something about the cryptography being too heavy for older devices. Was it TKIP that struggled with the key exchanges?
upvoted 0 times
...
Amber
8 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I think I need to focus on understanding the key drawbacks that initially prevented widespread adoption of OKC. The options mention things like vulnerabilities, lack of standards, and performance issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lino
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. It seems to be asking about some technical details of Opportunistic Key Caching that I'm not too familiar with.
upvoted 0 times
Ahmed
2 months ago
All these factors combined made it tough for OKC to take off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Albert
2 months ago
What about the issues with older devices? They struggled with the cryptography.
upvoted 0 times
...
Troy
3 months ago
I read that sharing cached keys was a big vulnerability too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nell
7 months ago
I think the lack of standards really hurt OKC's adoption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
7 months ago
Yeah, and the delays from the Wi-Fi Alliance didn't help either.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel