Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Campus Wi-Fi networks are vulnerable to sniffing attacks because of their open-access patterns, diverse user devices, and limited security monitoring. Objective: This study assesses sniffing risks in a campus Wi-Fi infrastructure by integrating ISO/IEC 27001 control domains and the Indonesian Information Security Index (KAMI). Methods: A quantitative assessment was conducted using questionnaires administered to five network security experts and 158 students who use the Wi-Fi network. Expert responses were analyzed using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to identify and prioritize security risks. User responses were assessed through a maturity-level evaluation of various Wi-Fi security aspects using a questionnaire mapped to the relevant ISO/IEC 27001 and KAMI Index domains. Results: The FMEA identified Network Risk Management and Log Recording as having the highest risk priority, with a Risk Priority Number (RPN) of 576, followed by Communications Security, with an RPN of 360. The maturity assessment of Wi-Fi security aspects indicates that all aspects have reached the Defined stage; however, aspects such as Wi-Fi Technology, Performance, Overload, and Stability remain at the Repeatable stage, with an average score of 2.82. Conclusion: The combined expert-judgment and maturity assessments indicate that network risk management, log recording, and communications security should receive priority attention. The findings support regular log review, centralized logging, formal incident-response and escalation procedures, and improved capacity and performance monitoring as risk-mitigation priorities. However, these findings should be interpreted as assessment-based recommendations rather than as evidence that the technical controls were directly tested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hutomo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: