Skip to main content

¿Qué es la autenticación PEAP? Cómo PEAP asegura su WiFi

Esta guía autorizada desglosa la autenticación PEAP para redes WiFi empresariales, detallando su arquitectura, limitaciones de seguridad en comparación con EAP-TLS y estrategias prácticas de implementación. Diseñada para gerentes de TI y arquitectos de red, proporciona información útil sobre cuándo PEAP-MSCHAPv2 sigue siendo apropiado y cómo protegerlo contra las amenazas modernas.

📖 5 min de lectura📝 1,239 palabras🔧 2 ejemplos3 preguntas📚 8 términos clave

🎧 Escuchar esta guía

Ver transcripción
What Is PEAP Authentication? How PEAP Secures Your WiFi. A Purple Enterprise WiFi Intelligence Briefing. Welcome. If you're responsible for network security at a hotel group, a retail estate, a stadium, or a public-sector organisation, this briefing is for you. Over the next ten minutes, we're going to cover PEAP authentication — what it actually is, how it works under the hood, where it fits in your security architecture, and critically, when it's the right call versus when you should be looking at something stronger. Let's get into it. Section one: Context and why this matters right now. Most enterprise WiFi deployments today still rely on one of two authentication models. You've either got a pre-shared key — a single password shared across the organisation — or you've got 802.1X, which is the IEEE standard for port-based network access control. PEAP sits firmly in the 802.1X camp, and it's by far the most widely deployed EAP method in corporate and institutional environments globally. The reason PEAP became so dominant is straightforward: it solved a real operational problem. Before PEAP, deploying certificate-based WiFi authentication meant issuing client certificates to every device — every laptop, every phone, every tablet. For an organisation with five hundred employees and a BYOD policy, that's a PKI deployment headache that most IT teams simply didn't have the budget or the time for. PEAP offered a middle path: strong server-side authentication via TLS, with username and password credentials on the client side. No client certificates required. That compromise made PEAP the de facto standard for enterprise WiFi authentication through the 2000s and 2010s, and it remains extremely common today. Understanding its architecture — and its limitations — is essential for anyone making infrastructure decisions in 2024 and beyond. Section two: Technical deep-dive. Let's walk through exactly what happens when a device authenticates via PEAP. The process has two distinct phases, and understanding both is critical. The three actors in this exchange are: the supplicant — that's the client device, whether it's a laptop, a smartphone, or an IoT terminal; the authenticator — typically the wireless access point or the wireless LAN controller; and the authentication server — almost always a RADIUS server, such as Microsoft NPS, FreeRADIUS, or a cloud-hosted RADIUS service. Phase one is TLS tunnel establishment. When the supplicant attempts to connect, the authenticator doesn't grant access immediately. Instead, it initiates an EAP exchange over the local network — this is EAPOL, EAP over LAN. The authenticator forwards this to the RADIUS server, which presents its server-side TLS certificate to the client. The client validates that certificate against its trusted certificate store. If validation succeeds, a TLS tunnel is established between the client and the RADIUS server. This tunnel is encrypted — typically TLS 1.2 or 1.3 in modern deployments. Phase two is inner authentication. Inside that encrypted tunnel, the actual credentials are exchanged. In the most common deployment — PEAP-MSCHAPv2 — the client sends a username and password using the Microsoft Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol version 2. The RADIUS server validates those credentials against its identity store, which might be Active Directory, LDAP, or a cloud identity provider. If the credentials check out, the RADIUS server sends an Access-Accept message back through the authenticator, and the client is granted network access. The key security property here is that the MSCHAPv2 exchange happens inside the TLS tunnel. An attacker passively monitoring the wireless channel cannot see the credentials in transit. That's the core value proposition of PEAP. Now, where does PEAP-MSCHAPv2 fall short? There are two significant issues that any security-conscious architect needs to understand. First: server certificate validation. PEAP only requires the server to present a certificate — it does not require the client to present one. This creates a well-documented attack vector. If a client device is misconfigured to accept any certificate — or to accept certificates from any CA — an attacker can stand up a rogue access point, present a fraudulent certificate, and intercept the MSCHAPv2 handshake. Tools like hostapd-wpe have made this attack trivially accessible. The mitigation is rigorous supplicant configuration: enforce server certificate validation, pin the expected CA, and specify the server's common name. This is non-negotiable in any serious deployment. Second: MSCHAPv2 is an older protocol with known weaknesses. The 2012 research by Moxie Marlinspike demonstrated that MSCHAPv2 challenge-response pairs can be cracked offline with sufficient compute. If an attacker does capture the inner authentication exchange — for example through the rogue AP attack described above — they can attempt to recover the plaintext password offline. The strength of your password policy therefore directly affects your exposure. Long, complex, randomly generated passwords significantly reduce this risk. Compare this to EAP-TLS, where both the server and the client present certificates. There are no passwords to steal. The attack surface is dramatically reduced. The trade-off is operational complexity: you need a PKI, you need to issue and manage client certificates, and you need a mechanism to distribute them to every device. For organisations with a mature MDM deployment and a well-managed PKI, EAP-TLS is the gold standard. For everyone else, PEAP-MSCHAPv2 with rigorous configuration remains a defensible and practical choice. Section three: Implementation recommendations and pitfalls. Let me give you the practical deployment guidance. These are the things that separate a secure PEAP deployment from a vulnerable one. Number one: enforce server certificate validation on every supplicant. This is the single most important configuration item. In Windows, this is the "Validate server certificate" checkbox in the wireless network profile. In iOS and Android, it's the CA certificate field in the EAP configuration. If this is not configured, your PEAP deployment is vulnerable to rogue AP attacks regardless of how well everything else is set up. Number two: deploy via MDM or GPO, not manual configuration. Manual configuration by end users is unreliable. Users will click through certificate warnings. They will misconfigure the CA field. Push your wireless profiles via Microsoft Intune, Jamf, or Group Policy. This ensures consistent, policy-compliant supplicant configuration across your estate. Number three: use TLS 1.2 as a minimum on your RADIUS server. Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1. Most modern RADIUS implementations support this, but it's worth verifying — particularly on older on-premises deployments. Number four: integrate with your identity provider. PEAP-MSCHAPv2 authenticates against a credential store. That store should be your authoritative identity provider — Active Directory, Azure AD via NPS extension, or a cloud RADIUS service with LDAP integration. This means that when an employee leaves, disabling their account immediately revokes their WiFi access. No shared secrets to rotate, no manual deprovisioning. Number five: consider your guest network separately. PEAP is an enterprise authentication method. For guest WiFi — where you're onboarding visitors, customers, or event attendees — you need a different approach. Platforms like Purple provide a purpose-built guest WiFi layer that handles captive portal authentication, data capture, and analytics without requiring RADIUS infrastructure on the guest SSID. Keep your enterprise SSID on 802.1X with PEAP, and your guest SSID on a separate, isolated network with appropriate onboarding. Number six: plan for certificate rotation. Your RADIUS server certificate will expire. When it does, every client that has pinned that certificate will fail to authenticate until the new certificate is distributed. Build certificate renewal into your operational calendar — at least 90 days before expiry — and test the rotation process in a staging environment before rolling it out to production. The most common failure modes I see in the field are: certificate validation not enforced, leading to rogue AP vulnerability; RADIUS server certificates that expire without warning, causing widespread authentication failures; and MSCHAPv2 inner authentication exposed because the RADIUS server is accessible from the wrong network segment. All three are avoidable with proper planning. Section four: Rapid-fire questions. Can PEAP work with cloud identity providers like Azure AD? Yes. Microsoft's NPS extension for Azure AD MFA allows you to proxy PEAP authentication through Azure AD, enabling multi-factor authentication on your WiFi. Alternatively, cloud RADIUS services like Cisco ISE, Aruba ClearPass, or JumpCloud RADIUS can integrate directly with Azure AD or Okta. Is PEAP compliant with PCI DSS? PEAP-MSCHAPv2 can be used in PCI DSS environments, but you need to ensure server certificate validation is enforced, TLS 1.2 or higher is in use, and the RADIUS server is properly segmented. PCI DSS 4.0 tightens requirements around network access controls — review the relevant requirements with your QSA. Should I migrate from PEAP to EAP-TLS? If you have a mature MDM deployment and the operational capacity to manage a PKI, yes — EAP-TLS is the stronger choice. If you're managing a mixed estate with personal devices, legacy hardware, or limited MDM coverage, PEAP-MSCHAPv2 with rigorous configuration remains appropriate. This is a risk-based decision, not a binary one. What about WPA3-Enterprise? WPA3-Enterprise mandates 192-bit security mode for high-security environments, but it still supports EAP methods including PEAP. WPA3 improves the over-the-air encryption but does not change the EAP authentication exchange itself. Section five: Summary and next steps. To bring this together: PEAP is a two-phase authentication protocol that wraps inner credentials — typically MSCHAPv2 — inside a TLS tunnel. It's the most widely deployed 802.1X EAP method because it eliminates the need for client certificates while still providing strong server authentication. Its primary vulnerability is rogue AP attacks enabled by misconfigured supplicants that don't validate the server certificate. Mitigate this through MDM-enforced wireless profiles, CA pinning, and server name validation. For most enterprise WiFi deployments — corporate offices, hotel back-of-house networks, retail staff networks — PEAP-MSCHAPv2 with proper configuration is a sound, defensible choice. For high-security environments, regulated industries, or organisations with mature PKI infrastructure, EAP-TLS provides meaningfully stronger security and should be the target architecture. If you're also running guest WiFi alongside your enterprise network — and most of you are — remember that PEAP is not the right tool for guest onboarding. Look at platforms like Purple, which provide purpose-built guest WiFi authentication with analytics, data capture, and marketing integration, keeping your guest and enterprise traffic properly separated and your compliance posture intact. For further reading, check out Purple's guides on RADIUS server architecture and enterprise WiFi authentication. Links are in the show notes. Thanks for listening. This has been a Purple Enterprise WiFi Intelligence Briefing.

header_image.png

Resumen ejecutivo

El Protocolo de Autenticación Extensible Protegido (PEAP) sigue siendo el método de autenticación 802.1X más ampliamente implementado en entornos empresariales hoy en día. Desarrollado conjuntamente por Cisco, Microsoft y RSA Security, PEAP fue diseñado para resolver un desafío operativo específico: cómo lograr una autenticación de servidor sólida basada en certificados sin la abrumadora sobrecarga administrativa de implementar certificados de cliente en cada dispositivo de la red.

Para los directores de TI y arquitectos de red que gestionan entornos complejos, ya sea en Retail , Healthcare o grandes oficinas corporativas, PEAP-MSCHAPv2 ofrece un término medio pragmático entre la inseguridad de las Claves Precompartidas (PSK) y la complejidad de implementación de EAP-TLS. Sin embargo, esta conveniencia conlleva compensaciones de seguridad inherentes. A medida que los ataques de puntos de acceso no autorizados se vuelven cada vez más sofisticados, las implementaciones de PEAP mal configuradas presentan una vulnerabilidad crítica.

Esta guía proporciona un análisis técnico exhaustivo de la arquitectura PEAP, su mecánica operativa y los estándares de configuración obligatorios necesarios para asegurarla en las redes empresariales modernas.

Análisis técnico profundo: La arquitectura de PEAP

Para entender PEAP, debemos examinar su proceso de autenticación de dos fases. PEAP opera estableciendo un túnel exterior seguro antes de intercambiar cualquier dato de credenciales sensible en el túnel interior.

Fase 1: Establecimiento del túnel TLS

Cuando un suplicante (dispositivo cliente) intenta conectarse a la red, el autenticador (típicamente un punto de acceso inalámbrico) bloquea todo el tráfico excepto los marcos de Extensible Authentication Protocol over LAN (EAPOL). El autenticador reenvía estos marcos al servidor de autenticación, generalmente un servidor RADIUS. Para una comprensión más amplia de esta infraestructura, consulte nuestra guía sobre ¿Qué es RADIUS? Cómo los servidores RADIUS aseguran las redes WiFi .

Durante la Fase 1, el servidor RADIUS presenta su certificado digital al suplicante. El suplicante valida este certificado contra sus Autoridades de Certificación (CA) raíz de confianza. Si la validación es exitosa, se establece un túnel TLS (Transport Layer Security) entre el suplicante y el servidor RADIUS. Este túnel cifrado protege toda la comunicación posterior de la escucha en el medio inalámbrico.

peap_architecture_overview.png

Fase 2: Autenticación interna

Una vez establecido el túnel TLS, la autenticación de usuario real tiene lugar dentro de este canal seguro. El protocolo de autenticación interna más común es MSCHAPv2 (Microsoft Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol versión 2).

Dentro del túnel, el suplicante envía las credenciales del usuario (nombre de usuario y contraseña) al servidor RADIUS. El servidor verifica estas credenciales contra un almacén de identidades, como Active Directory o un directorio LDAP. Si las credenciales son válidas, el servidor RADIUS envía un mensaje de Access-Accept de vuelta al autenticador, y se concede acceso a la red al cliente.

La premisa de seguridad crítica de PEAP es que el intercambio vulnerable de MSCHAPv2 está completamente encapsulado dentro del túnel TLS cifrado, protegiéndolo de la interceptación pasiva.

Guía de implementación: Asegurando PEAP-MSCHAPv2

Aunque PEAP es altamente funcional, su configuración predeterminada en muchos sistemas operativos cliente lo deja vulnerable a ataques sofisticados. Implementar PEAP de forma segura requiere una adhesión rigurosa a los siguientes estándares de implementación.

1. Validación obligatoria del certificado del servidor

La vulnerabilidad más significativa en una implementación de PEAP es la falta de aplicación de la validación del certificado del servidor en el lado del cliente. Debido a que PEAP no requiere un certificado de cliente, el suplicante debe estar absolutamente seguro de que se está comunicando con el servidor RADIUS legítimo antes de transmitir las credenciales.

Si un dispositivo cliente está configurado para confiar en cualquier certificado, un atacante puede implementar un punto de acceso no autorizado, presentar un certificado fraudulento e interceptar el handshake de MSCHAPv2. Herramientas como hostapd-wpe automatizan este ataque.

Acción de implementación: Los equipos de TI deben configurar todos los dispositivos empresariales para validar estrictamente el certificado del servidor. Esto implica fijar la CA raíz específica que emitió el certificado del servidor RADIUS y definir explícitamente el Common Name (CN) o Subject Alternative Name (SAN) esperado del servidor.

2. Perfiles inalámbricos aplicados por MDM

Confiar en que los usuarios finales configuren manualmente los ajustes 802.1X es un camino garantizado al fracaso. Los usuarios con frecuencia hacen clic en las advertencias de certificados, comprometiendo la integridad del túnel TLS.

Acción de implementación: Los perfiles de red inalámbrica deben ser enviados a todos los dispositivos corporativos a través de plataformas de Mobile Device Management (MDM) (por ejemplo, Microsoft Intune, Jamf) u Objetos de Política de Grupo (GPO). Estos perfiles deben bloquear la configuración de EAP, impidiendo que los usuarios alteren los requisitos de validación de certificados.

3. Desaprobación de protocolos heredados

Las versiones antiguas de TLS contienen vulnerabilidades criptográficas conocidas. Las implementaciones de PEAP deben aplicar estándares de cifrado modernos.

Acción de implementación: Configure el servidor RADIUS para rechazar las conexiones TLS 1.0 y TLS 1.1. Aplique TLS 1.2 como mínimo absoluto, con TLS 1.3 preferido donde sea compatible con la base de clientes.

Mejores prácticas: Segmentación estratégica de la red

Un error arquitectónico común es intentar usar PEAP para todo el acceso inalámbrico, incluidas las redes de invitados y BYOD. PEAP está diseñado para dispositivos empresariales gestionados que se autentican contra un directorio central.

Aislamiento del acceso de invitados

Para dispositivos no corporativos, PEAP es la herramienta equivocada. Intentar gestionar las credenciales de invitados en un RADIUS de directorio crea una sobrecarga administrativa innecesaria e introduce riesgos de seguridad.

Los recintos en Hostelería y Transporte deberían implementar una solución dedicada de Guest WiFi . Plataformas como Purple ofrecen un onboarding seguro basado en Captive Portal que opera de forma totalmente independiente de la infraestructura 802.1X empresarial. Esto asegura que el tráfico de invitados esté aislado, al mismo tiempo que permite una rica captura de datos a través de WiFi Analytics .

El papel de EAP-TLS

Al evaluar PEAP, los arquitectos de red también deben considerar EAP-TLS. EAP-TLS proporciona autenticación mutua: tanto el servidor como el cliente deben presentar certificados válidos. Esto elimina por completo la dependencia de las contraseñas, haciendo obsoletos los ataques de robo de credenciales.

peap_vs_eaptls_comparison.png

Aunque EAP-TLS ofrece una seguridad superior, requiere una robusta Infraestructura de Clave Pública (PKI) para emitir y gestionar certificados de cliente. Para entornos altamente regulados, EAP-TLS es la arquitectura objetivo. Para organizaciones que carecen de madurez en PKI, una implementación de PEAP-MSCHAPv2 estrictamente configurada sigue siendo una opción defendible.

Resolución de problemas y mitigación de riesgos

Incluso las implementaciones de PEAP bien diseñadas pueden experimentar fallos operativos. Comprender los modos de fallo comunes es esencial para una resolución rápida.

La crisis de caducidad del certificado

El evento más disruptivo en un entorno PEAP es la caducidad no gestionada del certificado del servidor RADIUS. Cuando el certificado caduca, todos los clientes que aplican la validación desconectarán inmediatamente la conexión, lo que resultará en una interrupción de la red a nivel general.

Mitigación: Implementar monitorización automatizada para el certificado del servidor RADIUS. Establecer un procedimiento operativo estándar para renovar y desplegar el nuevo certificado al menos 30 días antes de su caducidad. Si se utiliza una CA interna, asegurarse de que la propia jerarquía de la CA esté monitorizada.

Política de contraseñas y cracking offline

Aunque el túnel TLS protege el intercambio MSCHAPv2 en tránsito, si un atacante ejecuta con éxito un ataque de AP malicioso debido a clientes mal configurados, capturará los pares desafío-respuesta. La investigación ha demostrado que los hashes MSCHAPv2 pueden ser descifrados offline.

Mitigación: La complejidad de la contraseña de usuario subyacente es la última línea de defensa. Aplicar políticas de contraseñas estrictas —requisitos de longitud mínima, reglas de complejidad y rotación regular— para aumentar el coste computacional del cracking offline.

ROI e impacto empresarial

La transición de PSK a una implementación de PEAP 802.1X gestionada correctamente ofrece un valor empresarial medible en varias dimensiones.

  1. Reducción de la sobrecarga administrativa: La integración de la autenticación WiFi directamente con el proveedor de identidad corporativo (por ejemplo, Active Directory) automatiza el onboarding y el offboarding. Cuando un empleado se marcha, deshabilitar su cuenta de directorio revoca inmediatamente el acceso a la red, eliminando la necesidad de rotar una contraseña compartida.
  2. Auditabilidad mejorada: 802.1X proporciona visibilidad granular a nivel de usuario sobre el acceso a la red. Los equipos de TI pueden rastrear de forma definitiva la actividad de la red hasta individuos específicos, un requisito crítico para marcos de cumplimiento como PCI DSS y GDPR.
  3. Mitigación de riesgos: Al dejar de usar claves compartidas, las organizaciones reducen significativamente el riesgo de acceso no autorizado por parte de antiguos empleados o actores maliciosos, protegiendo la propiedad intelectual y los datos corporativos sensibles.

Para las organizaciones que buscan optimizar su arquitectura de red más amplia junto con su seguridad inalámbrica, se recomienda encarecidamente explorar soluciones WAN modernas. Obtenga más información sobre Los beneficios clave de SD WAN para empresas modernas .

Términos clave y definiciones

PEAP (Protected Extensible Authentication Protocol)

An 802.1X authentication protocol that encapsulates an inner authentication method (usually MSCHAPv2) within a secure TLS tunnel.

The dominant standard for enterprise WiFi authentication due to its balance of security and deployment ease.

802.1X

The IEEE standard for port-based Network Access Control, providing an authentication mechanism to devices wishing to attach to a LAN or WLAN.

The foundational framework that protocols like PEAP and EAP-TLS operate within.

EAPOL (EAP over LAN)

The protocol used to encapsulate EAP messages over a local area network, used during the initial stages of 802.1X authentication.

The mechanism by which the client and access point communicate before the network port is fully opened.

Supplicant

The client device (laptop, smartphone) requesting access to the network.

The endpoint that must be correctly configured to validate the server certificate in a PEAP deployment.

Authenticator

The network device (access point or switch) that facilitates the authentication process between the supplicant and the RADIUS server.

The enforcement point that blocks traffic until authentication is successful.

RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service)

A networking protocol that provides centralized Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) management.

The server that validates the user's credentials and issues the final accept/reject decision.

MSCHAPv2

A challenge-response authentication protocol developed by Microsoft, commonly used as the inner authentication method within PEAP.

The protocol that actually verifies the username and password, but requires the protection of the PEAP TLS tunnel due to cryptographic weaknesses.

EAP-TLS

An EAP method that requires mutual authentication using digital certificates on both the client and the server.

The highly secure alternative to PEAP, requiring a PKI deployment but eliminating password-based vulnerabilities.

Casos de éxito

A 300-bed luxury hotel needs to secure its back-of-house staff WiFi network. Currently, they use a single WPA2-Personal password that hasn't been changed in three years due to the operational disruption it would cause to update all point-of-sale terminals and staff tablets. How should they implement PEAP to resolve this?

The hotel should deploy an 802.1X architecture using PEAP-MSCHAPv2, integrating their wireless LAN controller with their central Active Directory via a RADIUS server (e.g., Microsoft NPS). They must use their MDM platform to push a standardized wireless profile to all staff tablets and POS terminals. This profile must explicitly enforce server certificate validation, pinning the CA that issued the NPS server's certificate. Staff will authenticate using their individual AD credentials.

Notas de implementación: This approach eliminates the vulnerability of a static shared key. By tying authentication to AD, offboarding staff immediately revokes their WiFi access. Using MDM to enforce certificate validation prevents rogue AP attacks, which are a high risk in public-facing hospitality environments.

A large retail chain is rolling out corporate laptops to store managers across 500 locations. They want to use PEAP-MSCHAPv2 but are concerned about the administrative burden of managing RADIUS certificates across so many sites.

Instead of deploying local RADIUS servers at each store, the retailer should utilize a cloud-hosted RADIUS solution integrated with their cloud identity provider (e.g., Azure AD or Okta). The access points at all 500 locations point to the cloud RADIUS endpoints. A single, globally trusted public certificate is used on the cloud RADIUS server, and the MDM payload deployed to the laptops pins this specific public certificate.

Notas de implementación: Centralizing the RADIUS infrastructure drastically reduces the management overhead. Using a public certificate simplifies the trust chain on the client devices, provided the MDM profile strictly pins the expected certificate to prevent interception.

Análisis de escenarios

Q1. You are auditing a hospital's WiFi network. They use PEAP-MSCHAPv2 for staff devices. During your review, you notice that the MDM profile pushed to iPads does not have 'Validate Server Certificate' checked. What is the immediate risk?

💡 Sugerencia:Consider what happens if an attacker sets up a device broadcasting the hospital's SSID.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado

The immediate risk is a Rogue Access Point (Evil Twin) attack. Because the iPads are not validating the server certificate, they will attempt to authenticate with any AP broadcasting the correct SSID. An attacker can intercept the MSCHAPv2 handshake and attempt to crack the staff passwords offline, leading to credential compromise.

Q2. A university IT department is planning to migrate their student network from a Pre-Shared Key (PSK) to 802.1X. They want to use EAP-TLS for maximum security but are facing resistance from the helpdesk team. Why might PEAP-MSCHAPv2 be a more practical choice in this scenario?

💡 Sugerencia:Consider the device ownership model in a university environment.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado

In a university, the devices are unmanaged (BYOD). Deploying EAP-TLS requires issuing and installing a unique client certificate on every student's personal laptop, phone, and tablet. This presents a massive support burden for the helpdesk. PEAP-MSCHAPv2 only requires the students to enter their existing university username and password, making onboarding significantly easier while still providing a major security upgrade over PSK.

Q3. Your organization's RADIUS server certificate is expiring in 14 days. It is issued by a public CA. What steps must you take to ensure no disruption to the PEAP-MSCHAPv2 wireless network?

💡 Sugerencia:Think about what the supplicants are currently configured to trust.

Mostrar enfoque recomendado

You must acquire the new certificate from the public CA and install it on the RADIUS server. Crucially, you must review the MDM wireless profiles. If the profiles are pinned to the specific old certificate, they must be updated to trust the new certificate before the old one expires. If the profiles only pin the Root CA, and the new certificate is issued by the same Root CA, the transition should be seamless, but it must be tested.