New Year Sale 2026! 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

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
Ashton
12 hours ago
C) was a major issue, legacy devices just couldn't keep up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamella
6 days ago
Totally agree with B), no standards really held things back.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
11 days ago
A) is spot on, those vulnerabilities were a big deal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julieta
16 days ago
Processor-intensive crypto, that's a real killer for old hardware. C is the winner.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carylon
21 days ago
Haha, the Wi-Fi Alliance must have been sleeping on the job with option D!
upvoted 0 times
...
Cordelia
26 days ago
C is the correct answer. Legacy devices couldn't handle the crypto overhead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathrine
1 month ago
I agree, option B makes sense. Lack of standards would delay adoption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glendora
1 month 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
1 month 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 months ago
Option A seems plausible. Sharing keys could definitely create vulnerabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annice
3 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
3 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
3 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
Nell
2 months ago
I think the lack of standards really hurt OKC's adoption.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
3 months ago
Yeah, and the delays from the Wi-Fi Alliance didn't help either.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel