Talk:Protected Extensible Authentication Protocol

I'm not a Cisco apologist, but in the name of objectivity, shouldn't this line be modified:

"As a result, most Cisco customers run the less secure and proprietary LEAP or EAP-FAST authentication protocols because they’ve swallowed the Cisco Kool-Aid."

Perhaps

"As a result, most Cisco customers run Cisco's proprietary LEAP or EAP-FAST authentication protocols due to their promotion by Cisco."

would be more appropriate?

No it should not be edited because it is 100% correct. LEAP and EAP-FAST are both less secure. In fact LEAP is so badly broken, even Cisco recommends not using it.

I think this sentence is misleading: PEAP-EAP-TLS is very similar in operation to the original EAP-TLS but provides slightly more protection due to the fact that portions of the client certificate that are unencrypted in EAP-TLS are encrypted in PEAP-EAP-TLS.

Realistically the effective strength of PEAP-EAP-TLS is no more than EAP-TLS. In both cases it is equal to the strength offered by TLS (which offers known key exchange protocols which are designed for "secure exchange" of keys on an "insecure" channel)