Bug 25722

Summary:	SSID names with hex bytes handled inconsistantly between the programs resulting in no connectivity
Product:	Mageia	Reporter:	w unruh <unruh>
Component:	RPM Packages	Assignee:	Mageia Bug Squad <bugsquad>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	major
Priority:	Normal	CC:	lewyssmith
Version:	7
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Source RPM:	Network center and wpa_supplicant and iwlist	CVE:
Status comment:

Description w unruh 2019-11-21 21:57:23 CET

Description of problem:
I just ran across a problem at the Univ Para in Belem Brazil One of their SSID
has (I presume) UTF code in the name. but Network center, iwlist, and
wpa_supplicant treat the name differently-- in particular some Capitalize the
hex bytes and others do not. Also Network center does not treat the ssid
properly.
The SSID is
ppgf_audit<backslash>xc3<backslash>xe3io_LPF Unfortunately something reports this as
ppgf_audit<backslash>xC3<backslash>xE3io_LPF which of course does not match the other one.

In addition, the wpa_supplicant name in /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf as
ssid="ppgf_audit<backslash>xc3<backslash>xe3io_LPF" but the "string version" (in double qoutes
does not translate into the appropriate bytes. It should be
ssid=P"ppgf_audit<backslash>xc3<backslash>xe3io_LPF" so that wpa_supplicant treats the escape
sequences properly. (in fact there is no reason why the ssid=P"..." form
should not be used for all the ssid= lines in wpa_supplicant.conf).

(NOte that I have to use the <backslash> or bugs.mageia does not accept the
report and crashes)

The short problemis that wpasupplicant refuses to connect to such an ssid,
since the match strings do NOT agree.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

2.9-1.1  wpa_supplicant
wireless-tools-30-0.pre9.11.mga7
libdrakx-net-2.42-1.mga7

How reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce: Try to use NetworkCenter to connect to an SSID with escape
characters in it.

Comment 1 w unruh 2019-11-22 03:58:15 CET

The bugs entry claimed a posting error for each of 3 attemts, but apparently did recieve the new entry.

Comment 2 Lewis Smith 2019-11-22 13:54:16 CET

(In reply to w unruh from comment #1)
> The bugs entry claimed a posting error for each of 3 attemts, but apparently
> did recieve the new entry.
This is the third. Marking as duplicate of the original.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 25720 ***

Resolution: (none) => DUPLICATE
Status: NEW => RESOLVED
CC: (none) => lewyssmith