MX64W Rogue AP detection

[1UpTech]

Recently we opened a support ticket with Meraki because none of our MX64W's show rogue AP's. Support informed me that the MX's currently have an issue with Rogue AP detection. I asked about a notice or firmware release notes documenting this issue and I was told Meraki hasn't released any information regarding this issue.

A number of our clients purchase these devices for their analytic and security features. In my opinion, if a security feature of a device is degraded this is a significant issue. If we're no longer able to monitor surrounding AP's and detect when a new one pops up then I have to create a report documenting the degraded security. The policies and procedures for most of our clients require the report on degraded security to specify when it started, how long it is expected, and the reasons why security has been degraded.

Does anyone here have any insight in to this issue?

Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

[PhilipDAth]

Note that the MX64W does not have a dedicated security radio like most of the APs, such as the MR33.

As a result, it can only do scanning in its spare time.  If it is busy it wont get much spare time for this, or may have trouble getting enough time to scan other channels.

If you are really concerned about WiFi threats you should try and move to an MR33 or above.

[1UpTech]

Thanks Phillip, yes I understand that. But when I perform a scan manually it should gather information as expected. If for some reason that feature has been degraded in mass there should have been an announcement.

Our smaller clients want visibility but don't want to spend the money to have WIPS. The MX64W helped us satisfy these clients. We recently had an issue where wireless interference was suspect. Per the agreements we have with our clients we handle remote service at a flat rate but onsite service is billable. Because of this degraded feature we had to perform an onsite survey without billing them because we feel like we sold them a product that is no longer doing what we said it would do.

But really, the degraded functionality isn't the most important issue here because bugs happen. The real issue is that we didn't know, Cisco didn't make effort to inform anyone, and there is no explanation or ETA for a resolution.