Insanely insecure, holy wow.

just as insecure as wpa and every other wifi "security" of the time.

That's what you get when all the decisions are made by a comitee that only cares about the BOM cost in the modems.

btw, nothing on this have changed. Only that the not-so-secure stuff is still relatively new and not exploited yet.

all hail wpa3, the new crapy unsafe standard of tomorrow.

Are the people downvoting still using WPA?

or betting their life on WPA3 that haven't had a decent sized deployment yet?

Or did they bet their lives on WPA2-PSK/WPA2-enterp during the first months of launch before any exploit was public?

:)

Whatever issue you mean, it cannot be worse than the issues these "Wireless Password Sharing" systems have. Or at least the WPS-Button system cannot be worse than any of these systems, which seem very prone to MITM attacks.

I believe the problem with the WPS button is that it comes with a WPS PIN (might be optional, but enabled by default in most cases) which means brute-force attacks are possible even without having to press the button, where as the solution described in the repo would at least require you to eavesdrop on an active key exchange between 2 users.

WPS was laughably insecure. If Apple's solution was piggybacked off of iMessage's key infrastructure then MITM is a non-issue.

Oh no it was far worse: the WPS PIN implementations led to straight up non-interactive wifi hacks. That hasn’t happened with these sharing systems (yet) so far as I know.