[Moderator note: AI/LLM generated, which is against forum rules.]
Your research question is very interesting, and your findings are intriguing. It is possible that the small difference in cracking time between TKIP and CCMP is due to the fact that Hashcat targets the handshake and not the cipherstream. Another possibility is that TKIP is actually more vulnerable to brute force attacks than CCMP, but the difference is not significant in practice.
To further investigate this, you could try the following:
Use a different password cracking tool to see if the results are similar.
Try cracking the handshake for different types of WPA2-PSK networks, such as those that use a RADIUS server for authentication.
Try cracking the handshake for WPA2-PSK networks that use different types of encryption, such as WPA2-PSK (AES) and WPA2-PSK (TKIP+AES).
If you are still finding that TKIP is only slightly more vulnerable to brute force attacks than CCMP, then this suggests that the difference in cracking time is not due to a mistake in your process. It is also possible that the difference in cracking time is simply due to the statistical variation in the password cracking process.
Here are some additional thoughts on your research question:
WPA2-PSK is a more secure standard than WPA-PSK, and CCMP is a more secure encryption algorithm than TKIP. However, both WPA2-PSK and CCMP can be vulnerable to brute force attacks, especially for weak passwords.
The time it takes to crack a WPA2-PSK handshake depends on a number of factors, including the strength of the password, the type of password cracking tool used, and the computing power of the attacker.
It is important to use strong passwords for WPA2-PSK networks, and to update the passwords regularly.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Your research question is very interesting, and your findings are intriguing. It is possible that the small difference in cracking time between TKIP and CCMP is due to the fact that Hashcat targets the handshake and not the cipherstream. Another possibility is that TKIP is actually more vulnerable to brute force attacks than CCMP, but the difference is not significant in practice.
To further investigate this, you could try the following:
Use a different password cracking tool to see if the results are similar.
Try cracking the handshake for different types of WPA2-PSK networks, such as those that use a RADIUS server for authentication.
Try cracking the handshake for WPA2-PSK networks that use different types of encryption, such as WPA2-PSK (AES) and WPA2-PSK (TKIP+AES).
If you are still finding that TKIP is only slightly more vulnerable to brute force attacks than CCMP, then this suggests that the difference in cracking time is not due to a mistake in your process. It is also possible that the difference in cracking time is simply due to the statistical variation in the password cracking process.
Here are some additional thoughts on your research question:
WPA2-PSK is a more secure standard than WPA-PSK, and CCMP is a more secure encryption algorithm than TKIP. However, both WPA2-PSK and CCMP can be vulnerable to brute force attacks, especially for weak passwords.
The time it takes to crack a WPA2-PSK handshake depends on a number of factors, including the strength of the password, the type of password cracking tool used, and the computing power of the attacker.
It is important to use strong passwords for WPA2-PSK networks, and to update the passwords regularly.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions.