[tialaramex]

> unless the WiFi people come up with WPA4 or something, which will surely be even worse.

This seems especially unwarranted, since WPA3 is not, as you might assume from this, worse than WPA2, and the paper is explicit about that.

Indeed two of their attacks are trying to _degrade_ you to WPA2, which would be a terrible idea if WPA3 was weaker.

The paper shows that if you do WPA3 badly, you are vulnerable to a bunch of nasty attacks, and doing it well is resource intensive (which may it hard to justify in cheap / low-power WiFi implementations). That's a good criticism of WPA3, but it isn't a reason WPA2 was better since that extra resource is needed to deliver a feature WPA3 didn't have at all (Forward Secrecy).