CWNP Updated CWNA-109 Exam Questions and Answers by georgiana

An advantage of using WPA3-Personal instead of WPA2-Personal as a security solution for 802.11 networks is that WPA3-Personal, also called WPA3-SAE, uses a stronger authentication exchange to better secure the network. WPA3-Personal uses Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) as the key exchange protocol, which provides stronger protection against offline dictionary attacks and password guessing than WPA2-Personal. SAE uses a Diffie-Hellman key exchange with elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) to establish a pairwise master key (PMK) between the AP and the client without revealing it to any eavesdropper. SAE also provides forward secrecy, which means that if one PMK is compromised, it does not affect the security of other PMKs. WPA2-Personal uses Pre-Shared Key (PSK) as the key exchangeprotocol, which is vulnerable to offline brute-force attacks if the passphrase is weak or leaked. Both WPA3-Personal and WPA2-Personal use AES for encryption, so there is no difference in that aspect. WPA3-Personal does not use a different encryption algorithm than WPA2-Personal, but rather a different key exchange protocol. References: [CWNP Certified Wireless Network Administrator Official Study Guide: ExamCWNA-109], page 307; [CWNA: Certified Wireless Network Administrator Official Study Guide: ExamCWNA-109], page 297.

MU-MIMO capabilities of the bridges are not a factor considered when calculating the Link Budget for an outdoor point-to-point WLAN bridge link. The Link Budget is acalculation of the expected signal strength at the receiver based on various factors that affect the RF transmission. Some of these factors are operating frequency, transmit power, receive antenna gain, free space path loss, cable loss, connector loss, and environmental loss. MU-MIMO stands for Multi-User Multiple Input Multiple Output, which is a technology that allows multiple devices to communicate simultaneously using multiple spatial streams. MU-MIMO is not relevant for a point-to-point link, where there are only two devices involved. References: 1, Chapter 2, page 59; 2, Section 2.2

PoE has different standards that define different power levels for PSEs and PDs. The original standard, IEEE 802.3af, defines two classes of PSEs: Class 3 (15.4 W) and Class 4 (30 W). The newer standard, IEEE 802.3at, also known as PoE+, defines four classes of PSEs: Class 0 (15.4 W), Class 1 (4 W), Class 2 (7 W), and Class 3 (12.95 W). The power level received at the PD is always lower than the power level provided by the PSE, due to cable resistance and power dissipation. The IEEE standards specify the minimum power level that must be received at the PD for each class of PSE. For a Class 4 PSE, the minimum power level received at the PD is 25.5 W910. References: CWNA-109 Study Guide, Chapter 7: Power over Ethernet (PoE), page 295; CWNA-109Study Guide, Chapter 7: Power over Ethernet (PoE), page 289.

A pre-design site visit in preparation for a predictive wireless LAN design is essential for gathering physical and environmental data about the site. The key tasks to be performed during such a visit include:

• Evaluating Building Materials: Different materials (concrete, glass, wood, etc.) have varying effects on RF signal propagation. Understanding the materials present helps in accurately predicting how signals will behave within the environment.
• Floor Plan Verification: Ensuring that the floor plan documents are an accurate representation of the actual building layout is crucial. Discrepancies between the floor plans and the physical layout can lead to inaccuracies in the predictive design.

The other options, while potentially valuable in other contexts, are not directly related to preparing for a predictive design:

• Installing APs(option A) for testing co-channel interference is more aligned with an active site survey rather than a pre-design visit for a predictive design.
• Collecting information about security requirements(option B) is important but is not directly related to the physical aspects of the site that would impact a predictive design.
• Testing antenna types(option C) would typically be part of an active site survey or the actual deployment phase, not a pre-design visit for predictive modeling.

Therefore, option D is the correct answer, focusing on evaluating physical aspects crucial for accurate predictive modeling.

References:

• CWNA Certified Wireless Network Administrator Official Study Guide: ExamCWNA-109, by David D. Coleman and David A. Westcott.
• Best practices for conducting pre-design site visits in wireless network planning.