It&#x27;s very different from WPA and WEP. &quot;TLS&quot; was a rebranding as part of the standardization process, for political reasons, and was not merited by any of the actual protocol changes. The wire format of TLS 1.0 looks exactly like how you&#x27;d have expected an SSL 3.1 or 4.0 to look, down to the fact that the version number field literally contains 3.1. The data structures are the same, the encoding is the same, many of the algorithms are the same, etc. And many of the protocol bugs are the same, and were only closed down in TLS 1.2.<p>WEP and WPA are completely different protocols. WEP only supports a shared, fixed encryption key, and in its common mode has no handshake. WPA always uses a handshake and derives a per-session key for encryption, and therefore requires a stateful client. (This is why, e.g., on Linux, you can use `iwconfig` to set a WEP password but you need to run the `wpa_supplicant` daemon for a WPA-password.) WPA&#x27;s handshake supports EAP, and WEP has no concept of it. And so forth.<p>Perhaps you&#x27;re thinking of WPA vs. WPA2? That&#x27;s much more like SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0: there was a standardization process between them, the protocol has been adjusted to address inherent security issues, there are more secure algorithms available, etc. but it&#x27;s still clearly an extension of the original protocol. But here, again, most practitioners and implementors are happy to call both protocols &quot;WPA&quot; without any risk of confusion or inaccuracy.