Connecting when ssid not broadcast

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

I searched the Kb and would like to confirm my conclusion. XPPro Sp2, will
not connect to an AP unless the ssid is broadcast. On kb article suggested
that it could connect but only if it had made a connection prior to turning
off ssid broadcast. I have not been able to connect unless I enable the ssid
broadcast. I am using the WZC utility but have not found a work around for
this "by design" feature.

TIA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Turn back on the SSID broadcast.

Turning it off provides no real increase in security, as the SSID is
broadcast with BEACON and PROBE RESPONSE packets. So even though you've
turned it off, it's quite simple for someone else to figure out what it is.

Your best bet for security is to use AES encryption, with a 64 character
password that's completely random.

(And yes, MAC address filtering is worthless too).

Matt Gibson - GSEC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

"GP1" <GP1@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A12BE508-8F4E-4466-AC22-F3580FF0CED9@microsoft.com...
>I searched the Kb and would like to confirm my conclusion. XPPro Sp2, will
> not connect to an AP unless the ssid is broadcast. On kb article
> suggested
> that it could connect but only if it had made a connection prior to
> turning
> off ssid broadcast. I have not been able to connect unless I enable the
> ssid
> broadcast. I am using the WZC utility but have not found a work around for
> this "by design" feature.

While agreeing with Matt Gibson's post in response to the above, I would
like to say just for the record, that I have recently added 3 new computers
to my wireless network - all with SP2 slipstreamed into the installation and
my SSID is hidden - after manually configuring the required settings
(WPA-PSK), all 3 connected without problems.

Rob


> TIA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Hi

There is a lot of Fiction and None Fiction in these matters some of it stems from the
fact that there are differences between the ways that manufacturers of Wireless Hardware
implement their firmware. In general it is a bad idea to switch SSID off. However some
Wireless Hardware would work well with SSID Off others would be very Quirky, or would
not work at all.

Disabling SSID, would my Wireless System be more secure? - http://www.ezlan.net/faq#ssid

Many people following popular TV shows like Fear Factor tend to state Gross sweeping
Negative security statements, trying to ignore the fact that not every small thief is a
capable to crack an industrial Safe box.

Some people count on their car keys for security and their car was never stolen. Others
have Keys, Club, Alarm, and their car disappears no matter what. MAC (keys), WEP
(club), WPA (alarm), WPA2 (alarm + security chip), all are providing variety levels of
security the differences are in probabilities.

Disabling SSID, would my Wireless System be more secure? - http://www.ezlan.net/faq#ssid

Wireless Security - http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html

WEP, WPA, and WPA2 - http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html

Wireless Segregation - http://www.ezlan.net/shield.html

Jack (MVP-Networking).



"RobDee" <robd@terra.es> wrote in message news:3njhqfF1rh41U1@individual.net...
>
> "GP1" <GP1@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A12BE508-8F4E-4466-AC22-F3580FF0CED9@microsoft.com...
> >I searched the Kb and would like to confirm my conclusion. XPPro Sp2, will
> > not connect to an AP unless the ssid is broadcast. On kb article
> > suggested
> > that it could connect but only if it had made a connection prior to
> > turning
> > off ssid broadcast. I have not been able to connect unless I enable the
> > ssid
> > broadcast. I am using the WZC utility but have not found a work around for
> > this "by design" feature.
>
> While agreeing with Matt Gibson's post in response to the above, I would
> like to say just for the record, that I have recently added 3 new computers
> to my wireless network - all with SP2 slipstreamed into the installation and
> my SSID is hidden - after manually configuring the required settings
> (WPA-PSK), all 3 connected without problems.
>
> Rob
>
>
> > TIA
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

> Many people following popular TV shows like Fear Factor tend to state
> Gross sweeping
> Negative security statements, trying to ignore the fact that not every
> small thief is a
> capable to crack an industrial Safe box.

This is true, but with wireless, you're putting the safe out on the front
lawn, and giving everyone a crack at it.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

I suppose the bottom line is that in XP sp2, MS intentionally prevents
connection to APs that are not broadcasting ssid. The effectiveness of
turning off the broadcast seems to depend on personal preference. Since my
previous experience with other OSs (win95/98, ME, and various flavors of
Linix) all allowed me to connect to the non-ssid broadcasting AP, I thought I
missed something in the config. Aparrently not. It may not prevent "real"
hackers from getting into my network but this "feature" is like the auto
makers deciding they will no longer install door locks because a "real" thief
could smash the window or pick the lock. I'm not sure I understand (or agree
with) the strategy but now I know.

Thanks for the responses; most enlightening.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:33:01 -0700, GP1 wrote:

> I suppose the bottom line is that in XP sp2, MS intentionally prevents
> connection to APs that are not broadcasting ssid. The effectiveness of
> turning off the broadcast seems to depend on personal preference.

Effectiveness of turning off SSID? What kind of "effectiveness"? Whether it
is enabled, or disabled, it is a matter of personal preference; unless
disabling it breaks something, at which point preference is trumped by
necessity.

> Since my previous experience with other OSs (win95/98, ME, and various flavors
> of Linix) all allowed me to connect to the non-ssid broadcasting AP, I thought
> I missed something in the config. Aparrently not. It may not prevent "real"
> hackers from getting into my network but this "feature" is like the auto
> makers deciding they will no longer install door locks because a "real" thief
> could smash the window or pick the lock. I'm not sure I understand (or agree
> with) the strategy but now I know.

SSID was never intended as a security feature, so comparing it with
automobile door locks is a futile analogy. In WLAN technology, the security
keys are the door locks; and WEP to WPA is sort of like a simple door latch
to a regular key. If we must have analogies.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

 

[Wen]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

GP1 wrote:
> I suppose the bottom line is that in XP sp2, MS intentionally prevents
> connection to APs that are not broadcasting ssid.

Not true in my experience.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Hi
Yeah, SSID is not a security feature.

Comparing to car, and stretching it a little , it would like thinking that removing
the License Pate will prevent theft of the vehicle.

I my experience with many End Users it seems a psychological issue associated with the
List of available Wireless that appears on their WZC. The fear is elicit by the thought
that their Wireless is listed on some one else WCZ.

It is hard to explain to the technically challenged that the atmosphere around us is
real equal opportunity entity and does not discriminate between Signals. What ever is
transmitted is in the "Air" whether it is yours or some body else.

If it would be up to me, I would add an Entry onto WZC that would say:

Check here if you want to connected only to your SSID and not to see other available
Networks.

Kind of out of sight out of Fear.

Jack (MVP-Networking).





"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6qjz308gq8bw$.dlg@discussions.microsoft.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:33:01 -0700, GP1 wrote:
>
> > I suppose the bottom line is that in XP sp2, MS intentionally prevents
> > connection to APs that are not broadcasting ssid. The effectiveness of
> > turning off the broadcast seems to depend on personal preference.
>
> Effectiveness of turning off SSID? What kind of "effectiveness"? Whether it
> is enabled, or disabled, it is a matter of personal preference; unless
> disabling it breaks something, at which point preference is trumped by
> necessity.
>
> > Since my previous experience with other OSs (win95/98, ME, and various flavors
> > of Linix) all allowed me to connect to the non-ssid broadcasting AP, I thought
> > I missed something in the config. Aparrently not. It may not prevent "real"
> > hackers from getting into my network but this "feature" is like the auto
> > makers deciding they will no longer install door locks because a "real" thief
> > could smash the window or pick the lock. I'm not sure I understand (or agree
> > with) the strategy but now I know.
>
> SSID was never intended as a security feature, so comparing it with
> automobile door locks is a futile analogy. In WLAN technology, the security
> keys are the door locks; and WEP to WPA is sort of like a simple door latch
> to a regular key. If we must have analogies.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint