Many companies have access to a web-based certification system, and operators find that there are some inconsistencies in the actual operation with the description in the product manual.
Question one: The staff member's contact with WiFi and then he's gonna log in to Portal.
This is the sort of experience with Portal certification, not bug.
The logic of Portal authentication is that each time a user accesss the network requires an account password to be certified on the Portal page before the system can be released online. If you want a staff member to certify and permanently off-board, it needs to be turned on."NATHHELL_SEAMLESS_AUTH"Or..."MAC automatically binds"Function.
The roles of these two functions are:After the first authentication, the system records the terminal ' s MAC address and then automatically identifies the device once it is re-entered without manual login.
Note: NATSHEL_SEAMLESS_AUTH is based on the premise that this device is only for personal use, and if it involves common equipment or multiple accounts, this function will cause security risks. Moreover, safety compliance requirements for some banking and financial customers explicitly prohibit automatic MAC binding, which can be done only by standard procedures and manually authenticating each time.
Question two: Visitors are certified with slow speed, like they're restricted.
This is probably a problem with the network of visitors being speeded up, not with the certification system.
The enterprise network certification system usually has bandwidth strategies for different roles: employees use high-speed access and visitors take low speed. Users are poorly aware of the low bandwidth restrictions if they have too few. I have seen one of the most extreme cases: a visitor to a writing building, WiFi, is limited to 512 Kbps at a lower speed, a mapd page is open for half a minute, and visitors report directly to the property industry.
Check-up: Log in the backstage of management, view the bandwidth policy configuration of the visitor role and at the same time perform a speed test comparison at user terminals to confirm whether it is a strategic issue or that the export bandwidth itself is inadequate.
There is also a point that can be easily ignored: whether the speed limit strategy is accurate to people. Some systems have a common speed limit, i.e. a maximum for the entire visitor section. In this structure, there are more visitors than one and even if everyone has enough bandwidth to appear useful, actual perception is poor.
Issue III: Certain equipment has been failed to verify, but others are normal
This problem is typical and may be due to several factors:
First: Equipment does not support mainstream certification agreements. Some old printers, Iot sensors, for example, support WEP certifications only and are incompatible with the current WPA3/WPA2. This equipment should not be connected to an enterprise’s inner network itself, but should be assigned to a dedicated dumb terminal network.
Second: equipment time is not synchronized. If the equipment is too time-consuming (over five minutes) for local time and authentication servers, the request for certification will be judged invalid. I have dealt with a problem: an Andre tablet has been failed in its authentication, it was checked for two months, and it turns out that the flatbed system has been restored to zero, which is more than three years away. This question log can quickly be located but easily deformed.
Third: the issue of certificates. This is common in mobile office settings like micro-letters, nails, etc.
Issue four: After the certification system collapsed, everyone couldn't access it.
This is the risk of a deployment pattern.
If the certification system is a web-based export, it will be disrupted directly once the system is shut down. I have seen one case: a company ' s authentication server crashed at 3:00 in the morning, leaving hundreds of people without access to the Internet during the peak hours of 9 a.m. for the entire office building, and IT urgently returned to the company ' s restart, which was delayed by almost two hours before and after.
The production environment strongly recommends deployment in a side-by-side mode, and certification system failures should not affect network availability. This question is to confirm with the vendor during the selection phase: Do you have a system support side deployment? How did the fail-over mechanism be designed?
Issue 5: Self-help recovery of a flow from missing account codes is a vacuum
The problem looks small, but it actually has a great impact.
The employee's account code forgets that if the self-help recovery process is cumbersome, either the IT worksheet is full or the employees simply give up WiFi."Get the password back."Function, but staff are required to check the mailbox or contact supervisors for identification and the process is half a day.
It is recommended that this item be tested with a focus during the selection phase: A normal employee account, three times deliberately losing the wrong password, then following a complete recovery process, see how long it takes to trigger and reset the login.
The enterprise network is secure from web certification, but the authentication system itself is also an IT system that needs continuous maintenance."If"In fact, a few pits will be less stepped on after the line.