SSID Broadcast

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

If I disable SSIB Broadcast, how can I connect to my network? I don't see
any available networks when I do this!
59 answers Last reply
More about ssid broadcast
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:16:40 +0200, Willhe spoketh

    >If I disable SSIB Broadcast, how can I connect to my network? I don't see
    >any available networks when I do this!
    >

    Since you're saying you cannot "see" any available networks, and you are
    using Microsoft Outlook to post, I'll assume you are using Windows XP
    and the wireless configuration that comes with XP.

    If you open the properties of your wireless connection, you'll see that
    it lists "available" networks, and "peppered" networks. If you're not
    broadcasting the SSID, you'll have to manually add the network to the
    "preferred" networks, and feed it all the information that you have.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Willhe <news@willhe.com> wrote:

    > If I disable SSIB Broadcast, how can I connect to my network? I don't see
    > any available networks when I do this!

    You have to enter the network name manually. But why do you want to
    disable SSID broadcast? Doing so really provides no additional security.
    Use WPA or at least WEP encryption and leave your SSID on.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:28:02 GMT, neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill
    Massello) wrote:

    <snipped>
    >You have to enter the network name manually. But why do you want to
    >disable SSID broadcast? Doing so really provides no additional security.
    >Use WPA or at least WEP encryption and leave your SSID on.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:39:23 GMT, Doug Jamal spoketh

    >I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    >or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    >the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    >figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    >passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.
    >

    Since passphrase implementation is a "convenience" only, and it
    implemented differently from vendor to vendor, "wireless" may produce a
    different WEP key on equipment from vendor, and a totally different WEP
    key others.


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:27:08 -0400, Lars M. Hansen wrote:

    > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:39:23 GMT, Doug Jamal spoketh
    >
    >>I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    >>or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    >>the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    >>figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    >>passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.
    >>
    >
    > Since passphrase implementation is a "convenience" only, and it
    > implemented differently from vendor to vendor, "wireless" may produce a
    > different WEP key on equipment from vendor, and a totally different WEP
    > key others.

    That has not been my experience. I've used the same passphrase across
    hardware vendors and gotten the same key. I'd be curious what others'
    experiences are.

    --
    Barry
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Doug Jamal <unimportantbishiv6atyahoodotcom@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    > or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    > the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    > figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    > passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.

    If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    feel better, but that's all it does.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I was not putting a statement, or opening a discussion in which to agree or
    disagree. I was putting a problem! Namely when I prohibit broadcasting SSID,
    how can I connect to my network, if I don't see the SSID? However, I found
    the solution already, I guess.
    The connection is established automatically. I don't have to select my own
    SSID to connect to, if it's in the list to connect to automatically.

    Nevertheless, thanks for your answer.

    "Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1gfmccp.1oftko953dh1zN%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
    > Doug Jamal <unimportantbishiv6atyahoodotcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    > > or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    > > the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    > > figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    > > passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.
    >
    > If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    > sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    > Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    > SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    > feel better, but that's all it does.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Guys, in no way am I interested in breaking into anyone's network.
    Some people think that disabling SSID is warranted while others do
    not. I, for one, disable SSID from being broadcast. Can it be
    sniffed out? Of course it can. Is it one extra hurdle for a would be
    hacker? Yes even though it is a small hurdle. Anyway, to the original
    poster, I'm glad you got your situation cleared. To everyone else,
    thanks for the replies.


    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:41:43 GMT, neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill
    Massello) wrote:

    >Doug Jamal <unimportantbishiv6atyahoodotcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    >> or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    >> the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    >> figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    >> passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.
    >
    >If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    >sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    >Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    >SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    >feel better, but that's all it does.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Neill Massello wrote:

    > If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    > sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    > Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    > SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    > feel better, but that's all it does.

    I think that with all of the points brought up in this argument anent
    secure and non-secure wireless networking one of the principle points of
    security has been forgotten. Basically, enable all security in order to
    make it that much more difficult for the unauthorised and unwanted to use
    your wireless network for whatever purpose they wish to.

    Many of us know that disabling the broadcasting of the SSID isn't going to
    add a high level of security to our wireless network, but every little
    security measure taken helps when seen as a whole. Besides, not everyone
    knows of the existence of sniffers and how to use them. The latter in
    particular are the type of people one is counting on here in one's
    security measure. But it also helpful as an initial security measure (weak
    as that security measure may be) in respect of others too. Layers of
    security, layers of difficulty, layers of barriers just add to the
    security. Such is the point being missed by some in their effort to
    disprove the security effect of disabling the broadcasting of the SSID.
    People need to look at things as a whole too, not only in parts.

    The fundamental flaw in any security measure is not to utilise something
    that could of a security benefit in one's total security policy just
    because it is seen as a weak security measure. In this instance, the weak
    security measure is fortified by other and more powerful security
    measures. For instance, encryption. However, the encryption security
    undertaken should not be the last measure in one's security policy either.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I'm glad you wrote all this, because it's exactly my opinion, so I don't
    have to do all the typing.

    Not hiding the SSID will result in a lot more attacks, probably
    unsuccessfully if further security measures are taken.

    A car should always be locked, however parking it in a garage gives
    additional security in comparison with leaving it on the streets.
    But indeed, using your garage and leaving the car unlocked gives no
    guarantee against theft.


    "Cyber Trekker" <cybertrekker@cyberia.net> wrote in message
    news:Da3Bc.44695$sj4.15796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > Neill Massello wrote:
    >
    > > If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    > > sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    > > Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    > > SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    > > feel better, but that's all it does.
    >
    > I think that with all of the points brought up in this argument anent
    > secure and non-secure wireless networking one of the principle points of
    > security has been forgotten. Basically, enable all security in order to
    > make it that much more difficult for the unauthorised and unwanted to use
    > your wireless network for whatever purpose they wish to.
    >
    > Many of us know that disabling the broadcasting of the SSID isn't going to
    > add a high level of security to our wireless network, but every little
    > security measure taken helps when seen as a whole. Besides, not everyone
    > knows of the existence of sniffers and how to use them. The latter in
    > particular are the type of people one is counting on here in one's
    > security measure. But it also helpful as an initial security measure (weak
    > as that security measure may be) in respect of others too. Layers of
    > security, layers of difficulty, layers of barriers just add to the
    > security. Such is the point being missed by some in their effort to
    > disprove the security effect of disabling the broadcasting of the SSID.
    > People need to look at things as a whole too, not only in parts.
    >
    > The fundamental flaw in any security measure is not to utilise something
    > that could of a security benefit in one's total security policy just
    > because it is seen as a weak security measure. In this instance, the weak
    > security measure is fortified by other and more powerful security
    > measures. For instance, encryption. However, the encryption security
    > undertaken should not be the last measure in one's security policy either.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Willhe <news@willhe.com> wrote:

    > A car should always be locked, however parking it in a garage gives
    > additional security in comparison with leaving it on the streets.
    > But indeed, using your garage and leaving the car unlocked gives no
    > guarantee against theft.

    Making your car invisible would also help to protect it from theft, but
    could be disastrous when you drove it or parked it on the street. The
    only way to "garage" a wireless network is to put it inside a building
    that blocks radio signals. This isn't practical for most of us, so our
    wireless networks end up occupying at least a bit of the public
    "streets" (unlicensed 2.4GHz radio spectrum).

    Disabling SSID doesn't make your "car" invisible but turns off the
    taillights (when moving) or covers up the reflectors (when parked).
    That's all right if there's no traffic in your neighborhood, but becomes
    a problem once more and more of your neighbors start driving cars on the
    same streets you use. Then, your SSID (taillights and reflectors) help
    to prevent collisions (interference) by helping other drivers see your
    car, letting them know that you are using or intend to use a traffic
    lane (channel).

    The only way to "lock" a wireless network is with encryption. That slows
    down the professional car thief (expert hacker) and completely stops the
    casual joyrider. Disabling SSID has no effect on the professional thief.
    It may stop the casual joyrider from seeing the door handle, but that
    doesn't matter because he wouldn't have been able to pick the lock
    anyway.

    When used without encryption, disabling SSID is nearly useless as a
    security measure. When used with encryption, it adds almost nothing.
    Even so, it might be worth doing if it did not impose a cost. But it
    does impose a cost: it makes it more difficult for Wi-Fi users to pick
    channels and avoid interfering with their neighbors. A small cost,
    perhaps, but one that exceeds the negligible benefits of disabling SSID.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    As for the security, it is a low level.. i.e. locking a screen door... if
    someone
    who has a wireless sniffer wants in, fine.. but for those who are just
    looking
    for an open network it helps... but I agree.. if someone really wants in,
    it won't stop them
    as long as there is other network traffic to sniff the SSID out..

    However, the advantage of a closed system (non-SSID broadcast) is for a site
    with multiple WLAN's Usually the "guest" network is the only one that is
    broadcasted
    to help with an ambiguity issue.. that way a guest does not need a static
    config or any
    confusion of what network to attach to..


    "Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1gfmccp.1oftko953dh1zN%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
    > Doug Jamal <unimportantbishiv6atyahoodotcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    > > or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    > > the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    > > figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    > > passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.
    >
    > If you're interested in breaking into my wireless network, you are using
    > sniffing software that can detect a "hidden" SSID within seconds.
    > Cracking the encryption, even weak WEP, usually takes hours. Disabling
    > SSID is like going into battle with a rabbit's foot. It might make you
    > feel better, but that's all it does.
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Doug Jamal mused:
    |
    | I disagree. If I'm interested in breaking into your wireless network
    | or at least, piggyback your wireless AP just to surf the net, knowing
    | the SSID is half the battle. Now all I need to do is concentrate on
    | figuring out your encryption. Remember, most people keep the
    | passphrase simple, i.e., wireless.

    Tells me my network is safe from you. ;-) If you have the tools to
    crack my encryption, then you have the tools to detect an unbroadcasted
    SSID.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Willhe mused:
    |
    | Not hiding the SSID will result in a lot more attacks, probably
    | unsuccessfully if further security measures are taken.

    That's not necessarily true. Even if it was, with good encryption and
    security practices (which you should be using anyway), it wouldn't matter.
    Besides, disabling SSID Broadcast causes other issues ... a neighbour could
    set up a network using your channel which would conflict with yours and his
    signal. If he also disables SSID, you'd have no idea why your WLAN
    throughput went in the tank. Additionally, some WLAN cards do not function
    well with SSID off ... the Linksys WPC54G on Win 2000 is one example.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Good one :) But again, my point is this: Some people believe that
    not broadcasting the SSID provides an additional effort for a would be
    hacker to have to deal with. Others disagree. My experience has been
    that most people simply hook up their wireless networks, find that the
    default settings work and never take the necessary steps to improve
    security. I've also found that many who disable broadcasting of the
    SSID continue to use the default SSID. With my wireless config
    utility, If I guess your unbroadcasted SSID, the name will appear in
    the SSID field. Anyway, thanks for the reply.

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:47:33 GMT, "mhicaoidh"
    <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> wrote:

    <snipped>
    Tells me my network is safe from you. ;-) If you have the tools
    to crack my encryption, then you have the tools to detect an
    unbroadcasted SSID.
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:20:41 GMT, Doug Jamal spoketh

    >Good one :) But again, my point is this: Some people believe that
    >not broadcasting the SSID provides an additional effort for a would be
    >hacker to have to deal with. Others disagree. My experience has been
    >that most people simply hook up their wireless networks, find that the
    >default settings work and never take the necessary steps to improve
    >security. I've also found that many who disable broadcasting of the
    >SSID continue to use the default SSID. With my wireless config
    >utility, If I guess your unbroadcasted SSID, the name will appear in
    >the SSID field. Anyway, thanks for the reply.

    I'll have to agree with you. Disabling SSID doesn't provide a whole lot
    of security if you're dealing with someone with the tools to do the job.
    But, it'll keep your network from showing up on your neighbors laptop,
    thus keep the snoopy neighbors out... It's just another "lock", and
    locks are there to keep honest people out. Dishonest people does't care
    about locks, as they have ways to get around them...

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I used Network Stumbler with my notebook I took a walk thru my
    neighborhood, I found 51 networks of which 17 where not secure. Do I don't
    think not broadcasting SSID helps at all..

    "Willhe" <news@willhe.com> wrote in message
    news:40d42eaa$0$28587$a0ced6e1@news.skynet.be...
    > If I disable SSIB Broadcast, how can I connect to my network? I don't see
    > any available networks when I do this!
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    NetStumbler is supposed to be "polite" - it is designed to NOT try to locate
    networks that are not broadcasting SSID, even though there are ways to
    discover it. I imagine the networks you found were all broadcasting (or else
    you're using something other than NetStumbler).

    "Christian" <nomail.please@no.com> wrote in message
    news:eW4Cc.77789$%T.69535@okepread05...
    > I used Network Stumbler with my notebook I took a walk thru my
    > neighborhood, I found 51 networks of which 17 where not secure. Do I
    don't
    > think not broadcasting SSID helps at all..
    >
    > "Willhe" <news@willhe.com> wrote in message
    > news:40d42eaa$0$28587$a0ced6e1@news.skynet.be...
    > > If I disable SSIB Broadcast, how can I connect to my network? I don't
    see
    > > any available networks when I do this!
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:enEBc.67264$2i5.31721@attbi_s52...
    > Taking a moment's reflection, Willhe mused:
    > |
    > | Not hiding the SSID will result in a lot more attacks, probably
    > | unsuccessfully if further security measures are taken.
    >
    > That's not necessarily true. Even if it was, with good encryption and
    > security practices (which you should be using anyway), it wouldn't matter.
    > Besides, disabling SSID Broadcast causes other issues ... a neighbour
    could
    > set up a network using your channel which would conflict with yours and
    his
    > signal. If he also disables SSID, you'd have no idea why your WLAN
    > throughput went in the tank. Additionally, some WLAN cards do not
    function
    > well with SSID off ... the Linksys WPC54G on Win 2000 is one example.

    Funny that Linksys recommends disabling SSID:

    2. SSID Broadcast
    SSID broadcasts allows other 802.11b and 802.11g users to see your Access
    Points SSID, by disabling this option is similar to closing your binds and
    not letting people see through. If you have Windows XP computer(s), do this
    step last.

    a) Select Disable on the "SSID Broadcast".

    b) Click Apply then Continue
  20. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, JTS mused:
    |
    || Additionally, some WLAN cards do not function
    || well with SSID off ... the Linksys WPC54G on Win 2000 is one example.
    |
    | Funny that Linksys recommends disabling SSID:

    Oh, I know. That's how I discovered the issue to begin with ...
    following Linksys' recommendations. Under W98, the card would associate
    fine with SSID Broadcast disabled. However, 2000 it was no go ... That's
    when I started reading in the debate on SSID Broadcast on or off ... I came
    down on the ON side. If your encryption is on, then SSID on/off doesn't
    matter. Anyone who can crack your encryption can detect your SSID
    regardless.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    mhicaoidh wrote:

    > ....That's when I started reading in the debate on SSID Broadcast on or
    > off ... I came down on the ON side. If your encryption is on, then SSID
    > on/off doesn't matter. Anyone who can crack your encryption can detect
    > your SSID regardless.

    That, however, is not the point on which the argument for turning it off
    rests.

    Let's put it this way, anyone can break into your home regardless of locks
    and certain minor security measures. However, it is unwise to leave your
    home unlocked and unsecured just because any passerby could potentially
    break in regardless of the possible security measures that could be taken.
    It is likewise unwise, as another example, to lock the front door and all
    of the windows but to intentionally leave the back door unlocked when
    there is no point to doing so.

    The ignoring of the basic principles of security makes it that much more
    inevitable something may happen. Ease of entry is the first thing looked
    for by those intending to take advantage of an opportunity offered them or
    even by a spur of the moment decision to so do. Few people these days can
    be trusted. Ethics, morals, honesty and the other finer things like these
    in life have virtually disappeared from human nature in the so-called
    modern world. Take no risk. Act on the side of caution.

    There, unfortunately, are some scenarios when one may have to forgo a
    certain measure of security to obtain a required service. Not everyone
    from all accounts experiences a working WLAN with SSID turned off. These
    situations, however, are the exception to the general rule until and
    unless a workable solution is found.

    I'm all for individual freedom. Leave it on or turn it off. Such doesn't
    bother me. In the end, the choice is the individual's. Nonetheless, the
    arguments used at times by the proponents of not turning the broadcasting
    of one's SSID off are often weak and entirely miss the point.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Cyber Trekker" <cybertrekker@cyberia.net> wrote in message
    news:i6FCc.63101$sj4.18623@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > mhicaoidh wrote:
    >
    > > ....That's when I started reading in the debate on SSID Broadcast on or
    > > off ... I came down on the ON side. If your encryption is on, then
    SSID
    > > on/off doesn't matter. Anyone who can crack your encryption can detect
    > > your SSID regardless.
    >
    > That, however, is not the point on which the argument for turning it off
    > rests.

    Actually, it is the point. Disabling SSID in no way resembles any kind of
    lock. If we're going to make painful extended analogies, it's like painting
    your door exactly the same color as your wall, hoping that no-one notices
    it's there. If you lock the door, it doesn't matter if it's in plain view.
    If you don't lock it, somebody's going to find the doorknob anyway, and
    steal you blind.

    That said, for almost everyone, it simply doesn't matter at all whether you
    do or don't disable SSID.

    >
    > Let's put it this way, anyone can break into your home regardless of locks
    > and certain minor security measures. However, it is unwise to leave your
    > home unlocked and unsecured just because any passerby could potentially
    > break in regardless of the possible security measures that could be taken.
    > It is likewise unwise, as another example, to lock the front door and all
    > of the windows but to intentionally leave the back door unlocked when
    > there is no point to doing so.
    >
    > The ignoring of the basic principles of security makes it that much more
    > inevitable something may happen. Ease of entry is the first thing looked
    > for by those intending to take advantage of an opportunity offered them or
    > even by a spur of the moment decision to so do. Few people these days can
    > be trusted. Ethics, morals, honesty and the other finer things like these
    > in life have virtually disappeared from human nature in the so-called
    > modern world. Take no risk. Act on the side of caution.
    >
    > There, unfortunately, are some scenarios when one may have to forgo a
    > certain measure of security to obtain a required service. Not everyone
    > from all accounts experiences a working WLAN with SSID turned off. These
    > situations, however, are the exception to the general rule until and
    > unless a workable solution is found.
    >
    > I'm all for individual freedom. Leave it on or turn it off. Such doesn't
    > bother me. In the end, the choice is the individual's. Nonetheless, the
    > arguments used at times by the proponents of not turning the broadcasting
    > of one's SSID off are often weak and entirely miss the point.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    gary wrote:

    > Actually, it is the point. Disabling SSID in no way resembles any kind of
    > lock. If we're going to make painful extended analogies, it's like
    > painting your door exactly the same color as your wall, hoping that
    > no-one notices it's there. If you lock the door, it doesn't matter if
    > it's in plain view. If you don't lock it, somebody's going to find the
    > doorknob anyway, and steal you blind.

    Actually, my point is the point. The problem is, you, with all due respect,
    just don't understand the point of what is being said. No one is really
    saying it's a lock. My analogy,following the Law of Analogy (aka the Law
    of Correspondences), therefore, holds firm. It is but an analogy drawn to
    get a point across. Few here, as elsewhere, so I have observed,truly
    understand analogies and interpret them correctly.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    gary wrote:

    > If we're going to make painful extended analogies, it's like
    > painting your door exactly the same color as your wall, hoping that
    > no-one notices it's there. If you lock the door, it doesn't matter if
    > it's in plain view. If you don't lock it, somebody's going to find the
    > doorknob anyway, and steal you blind.

    To add to my previous response, both analogies hold good.

    What is so painful to me is the irrationality of pseudo-intellectualism,
    not analogies.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Cyber Trekker mused:
    |
    | That, however, is not the point on which the argument for turning it off
    | rests.

    It is, in fact. The issue is your mis-perception of SSID Broadcast
    being a security measure in the first place. It isn't.

    | Let's put it this way, anyone can break into your home regardless of locks
    | and certain minor security measures. However, it is unwise to leave your
    | home unlocked and unsecured just because any passerby could potentially
    | break in regardless of the possible security measures that could be taken.
    | It is likewise unwise, as another example, to lock the front door and all
    | of the windows but to intentionally leave the back door unlocked when
    | there is no point to doing so.

    This is a flawed example, and an illustration of what I am talking
    about. SSID Broadcasting is not a security implementation. Somewhere the
    notion that turning it off made you more secure got started. On its face,
    this seems to make sense. However, in reality, it doesn't hold up.

    If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes ...
    everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will keep
    them from associating with it. To turn a phrase from your example,
    encryption keeps them on the sidewalk looking at the house. If he has the
    tools to then start cracking your encryption, then he already has the tools
    to detect your SSID ... which he would have done at the same time that he
    detected your broadcasted SSID. So, I fail to see a fundamental difference
    here in terms of security.

    If you have SSID Broadcast disabled, and encryption enabled ... the only
    difference is the casual passer-by doesn't notice your house. However, he
    might decide, since he doesn't see a house on the lot, to build his own
    house there ... setting up his own wireless network on the same channel that
    you are "invisibly" using. If he decides to also disable broadcasting, you
    may never know why your data rates are in the tank. If he saw your network
    to begin with, he could chose a different channel.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Cyber Trekker mused:
    |
    | To add to my previous response, both analogies hold good.

    Only in your mind, I'm afraid. But, since you are building you own
    analogies from your own flawed logic ... it makes since that your above
    statement would be believable to you.

    | What is so painful to me is the irrationality of pseudo-intellectualism,
    | not analogies.

    Pot ... kettle ... Well, you know the rest.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    mhicaoidh wrote:


    > Only in your mind, I'm afraid. But, since you are building you own
    > analogies from your own flawed logic ... it makes since that your above
    > statement would be believable to you.

    Grow up!

    > | What is so painful to me is the irrationality of
    > | pseudo-intellectualism, not analogies.
    >
    > Pot ... kettle ... Well, you know the rest.

    Grow up!
  28. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    mhicaoidh wrote:

    > It is, in fact. The issue is your mis-perception of SSID Broadcast
    > being a security measure in the first place. It isn't.

    Grow up! Anything that can add to security IS a security measure. Are
    humans really so dumb?
  29. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I think we can all agree that disabling the SSID broadcast is normally a
    good idea. If someone doesn't easliy see it, they won't be tempted. Static
    WEP is another issue in itself. I think it took MIT about half a million
    packets to break a test 128bit key. If someone wants to sit outside my
    place for hours and try to break my key, knock yourself out.

    For a business with something to protect, I would recommend a device that
    provides dynamic encryption like Cisco ACS. Just my worthless two cents.
    :)

    "Cyber Trekker" <cybertrekker@cyberia.net> wrote in message
    news:cs0Dc.64425$sj4.63652@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > mhicaoidh wrote:
    >
    > > It is, in fact. The issue is your mis-perception of SSID Broadcast
    > > being a security measure in the first place. It isn't.
    >
    > Grow up! Anything that can add to security IS a security measure. Are
    > humans really so dumb?
  30. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Outfrigginstanding! Your analogy is right on the mark. You cannot
    get any clearer. Yet,it is safe to assume that we all agree that
    broadcasting the SSID without enabling encryption is not recommended.
    Furthermore, many of us feel more "secure" by enabling encryption AND
    disabling the broadcasting of the SSID. It's more of an issue of
    comfort than security.
    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:25:32 GMT, "mhicaoidh"
    <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> wrote:
    <snipped>
    > If you have SSID Broadcast disabled, and encryption enabled ... the only
    >difference is the casual passer-by doesn't notice your house. However, he
    >might decide, since he doesn't see a house on the lot, to build his own
    >house there ... setting up his own wireless network on the same channel that
    >you are "invisibly" using. If he decides to also disable broadcasting, you
    >may never know why your data rates are in the tank. If he saw your network
    >to begin with, he could chose a different channel.
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    ld <ld@blah.com> wrote:

    > I think we can all agree that disabling the SSID broadcast is normally a
    > good idea.

    No, we can't all agree. SSID broadcasting should only be disabled in
    special situations such as WDS or roaming setups. Normally, an SSID
    should be broadcast for every channel or separate wireless network in
    use.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:0mYCc.109113$eu.54705@attbi_s02...
    > If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes ...
    > everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will keep
    > them from associating with it.

    Just to pick nits (for which I am well known), encryption will not keep one
    from associating with an access point. Encryption will only obscure the
    content of your messages. Authentication is used to control who may
    associate with an access point, and most networks (even with WEP enabled)
    use Open Authentication (read: none).

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
    news:OxiDc.6979$OT6.5971537@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    > news:0mYCc.109113$eu.54705@attbi_s02...
    > > If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes ...
    > > everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will keep
    > > them from associating with it.
    >
    > Just to pick nits (for which I am well known), encryption will not keep
    one
    > from associating with an access point. Encryption will only obscure the
    > content of your messages. Authentication is used to control who may
    > associate with an access point, and most networks (even with WEP enabled)
    > use Open Authentication (read: none).

    This is technically true, but it obscures an important point. Use of the AP
    is barred if properly encrypted payloads cannot be exchanged. Open and
    Shared-Key are MAC authentication policies for association. Payload
    encryption can be viewed as a defacto authentication policy at the ISO
    network layer. The decryption is done at the MAC sublayer, but if it does
    not succeed, access to the network layer is denied.

    >
    > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    >
    >
  34. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:9RiDc.8535$TM2.71@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
    > news:OxiDc.6979$OT6.5971537@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > > "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    > > news:0mYCc.109113$eu.54705@attbi_s02...
    > > > If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes ...
    > > > everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will
    keep
    > > > them from associating with it.
    > >
    > > Just to pick nits (for which I am well known), encryption will not keep
    > one
    > > from associating with an access point. Encryption will only obscure the
    > > content of your messages. Authentication is used to control who may
    > > associate with an access point, and most networks (even with WEP
    enabled)
    > > use Open Authentication (read: none).
    >
    > This is technically true, but it obscures an important point. Use of the
    AP
    > is barred if properly encrypted payloads cannot be exchanged. Open and
    > Shared-Key are MAC authentication policies for association. Payload
    > encryption can be viewed as a defacto authentication policy at the ISO
    > network layer. The decryption is done at the MAC sublayer, but if it does
    > not succeed, access to the network layer is denied.
    >
    > >
    > > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.

    Yes, but it's confusing to some people to say that encryption prevents
    association with the AP, and then when they see that the software reports an
    association has been made, they think that encryption is not part of their
    problem.

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
    news:0mkDc.7666$OT6.6320640@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    > news:9RiDc.8535$TM2.71@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
    > >
    > > "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
    > > news:OxiDc.6979$OT6.5971537@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > > > "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:0mYCc.109113$eu.54705@attbi_s02...
    > > > > If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes
    ....
    > > > > everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will
    > keep
    > > > > them from associating with it.
    > > >
    > > > Just to pick nits (for which I am well known), encryption will not
    keep
    > > one
    > > > from associating with an access point. Encryption will only obscure
    the
    > > > content of your messages. Authentication is used to control who may
    > > > associate with an access point, and most networks (even with WEP
    > enabled)
    > > > use Open Authentication (read: none).
    > >
    > > This is technically true, but it obscures an important point. Use of the
    > AP
    > > is barred if properly encrypted payloads cannot be exchanged. Open and
    > > Shared-Key are MAC authentication policies for association. Payload
    > > encryption can be viewed as a defacto authentication policy at the ISO
    > > network layer. The decryption is done at the MAC sublayer, but if it
    does
    > > not succeed, access to the network layer is denied.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    >
    > Yes, but it's confusing to some people to say that encryption prevents
    > association with the AP, and then when they see that the software reports
    an
    > association has been made, they think that encryption is not part of their
    > problem.

    Yes, the distinction between associating and connecting to the network can
    be confusing. But it's also confusing to imply that "authentication" only
    has to do with association. I believe that if you're using WEP, Open
    authentication is the best scheme. Somebody who just reads the standard
    might say, well that's no authentication at all, right? But it is network
    layer authentication, and Shared-key authentication actually slightly
    weakens overall security.

    >
    > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    >
    >
  36. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Cyber Trekker mused:
    |
    | Grow up!

    Please consider your own advice ....

    | Anything that can add to security IS a security measure. Are
    | humans really so dumb?

    Apparently. What part of "disabling SSID Broadcasting isn't a security
    measure" don't you understand? Let me try again ... feeling this will be
    wasted effort as well ...

    Case #1: Someone who is out wardriving for wireless networks who *does
    not* have the tools/ability to crack encryption will not be able to
    associate with a network whether SSID is on or not. So, therefore, SSID
    Broadcast on/off does not matter in terms of security in this case. If you
    still feel it does, then please explain how. True, a casual hacker can make
    attempts at your network; but, he's not going to get in because he doesn't
    have the tools. So, what are you risking?

    Case #2: Someone who is out wardriving for wireless networks that
    *does* have the tools/ability to crack encryption will detect a wireless
    network *regardless of whether SSID is being broadcast* and at *exactly the
    same moment* in both instances. So, therefore, SSID Broadcast on/off does
    not matter in terms of security in this case either. If you still feel it
    does, then please explain how.

    Conclusion: The only time disabling SSID Broadcasting has an effect on
    the situation is when the person doesn't have the means to crack your
    network anyway. Disabling SSID Broadcasting does not increase your
    security.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Ron Bandes mused:
    |
    | Just to pick nits (for which I am well known), encryption will not keep
    | one from associating with an access point. Encryption will only obscure
    | the content of your messages. Authentication is used to control who may
    | associate with an access point, and most networks (even with WEP enabled)
    | use Open Authentication (read: none).

    True. In terms of my usage of the term, I was referring to connection
    to the network (DHCP) and gaining normal network access. While under the
    example, strict association is possible, there still would be no network
    access.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, ld mused:
    |
    | I think we can all agree that disabling the SSID broadcast is normally a
    | good idea. If someone doesn't easliy see it, they won't be tempted.
    | Static WEP is another issue in itself. I think it took MIT about half a
    | million packets to break a test 128bit key. If someone wants to sit
    | outside my place for hours and try to break my key, knock yourself out.

    I wouldn't agree with that due to the reasons I have cited. The lack of
    a real security benefit aside, you risk creating collisions with two
    "hidden" networks using the same channel, WLAN card association issues, and
    a host of other problems.

    Personally, I wouldn't run a WLAN on anything below WPA-PSK encryption.
    While still vulnerable to dictionary attacks (in theory), you do not have
    the sniffing issue that is present in WEP.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    You people are arguing nonsense. I make a living addressing security issues
    such as this daily. First you need to understand the meaning of the term
    'ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE'.
    with SSID broadcast enabled you are putting up a swimming pool without a
    fence, some fool will see it and try to take a swim. Disabling SSID will
    deter the first level of attempts to gain unauthorized access.
    Disabling SSID broadcasts is the FIRST STEP at securing a wireless network.
    If you believe otherwise you need a real world education in
    'cyber-criminology. The only reason SSID broadcast exists is to INVITE
    wireless clients to join the network, something that is done to simplify
    administration of large networks that have other more sophisticated means of
    security. This is not to say that it is the only security measure to use on
    a small wireless network but it is definitely the first .
    The second thing you need to realize is that the next level of threat comes
    from the more savvy hacker, and does require stronger measures, however as
    most of these people are looking for more than a simple home network. They
    look for corporate network access which tends to advertise via enabled SSID
    broadcasts.
    For those of you who disbelieve these FACTS, I suggest that you sign up for
    Microsoft's Security TechNet and LEARN the facts before you continue to SPEW
    the falsehoods that are prevailing in this newsgroup.


    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:0mYCc.109113$eu.54705@attbi_s02...
    > Taking a moment's reflection, Cyber Trekker mused:
    > |
    > | That, however, is not the point on which the argument for turning it off
    > | rests.
    >
    > It is, in fact. The issue is your mis-perception of SSID Broadcast
    > being a security measure in the first place. It isn't.
    >
    > | Let's put it this way, anyone can break into your home regardless of
    locks
    > | and certain minor security measures. However, it is unwise to leave your
    > | home unlocked and unsecured just because any passerby could potentially
    > | break in regardless of the possible security measures that could be
    taken.
    > | It is likewise unwise, as another example, to lock the front door and
    all
    > | of the windows but to intentionally leave the back door unlocked when
    > | there is no point to doing so.
    >
    > This is a flawed example, and an illustration of what I am talking
    > about. SSID Broadcasting is not a security implementation. Somewhere the
    > notion that turning it off made you more secure got started. On its face,
    > this seems to make sense. However, in reality, it doesn't hold up.
    >
    > If you have SSID Broadcast enabled, as well as encryption, yes ...
    > everyone will be able to see your AP. However, the encryption will keep
    > them from associating with it. To turn a phrase from your example,
    > encryption keeps them on the sidewalk looking at the house. If he has the
    > tools to then start cracking your encryption, then he already has the
    tools
    > to detect your SSID ... which he would have done at the same time that he
    > detected your broadcasted SSID. So, I fail to see a fundamental
    difference
    > here in terms of security.
    >
    > If you have SSID Broadcast disabled, and encryption enabled ... the
    only
    > difference is the casual passer-by doesn't notice your house. However, he
    > might decide, since he doesn't see a house on the lot, to build his own
    > house there ... setting up his own wireless network on the same channel
    that
    > you are "invisibly" using. If he decides to also disable broadcasting,
    you
    > may never know why your data rates are in the tank. If he saw your
    network
    > to begin with, he could chose a different channel.
    >
    >
  40. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:45:37 GMT, Dragon5126 spoketh

    >You people are arguing nonsense. I make a living addressing security issues
    >such as this daily. First you need to understand the meaning of the term
    >'ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE'.
    >with SSID broadcast enabled you are putting up a swimming pool without a
    >fence, some fool will see it and try to take a swim. Disabling SSID will
    >deter the first level of attempts to gain unauthorized access.

    You're not wrong. You're not right either. Disabling SSID broadcast will
    stop grandma from seeing the wireless network, it won't stop that
    thirteen year old down the road because he's read about AirSnort and
    other "cool" tools. And, if you're using good encryption (read: WPA
    w/AES), then it doesn't really matter if they can see that the network
    exists, as it's very unlikely that they'll be able to do anything with
    the data they're getting...

    However, disabling the SSID broadcasts doesn't do any harm, so there's
    no compelling reason not to disable it...


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  41. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Lars M. Hansen wrote:

    > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:45:37 GMT, Dragon5126 spoketh
    >
    >>You people are arguing nonsense. I make a living addressing security
    >>issues such as this daily. First you need to understand the meaning of
    >>the term
    >>'ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE'.
    >>with SSID broadcast enabled you are putting up a swimming pool without a
    >>fence, some fool will see it and try to take a swim. Disabling SSID will
    >>deter the first level of attempts to gain unauthorized access.
    >
    > You're not wrong. You're not right either.

    I left this group because of idiots who cannot even understand the basic
    concept and principles behind security, but who by and large speak as
    though they are authorities at the most or know what they are talking
    about at the very least. I've temporarily re-subscribed to find nonsense
    still pouring out of the dull minds and foul mouths of brainless humans
    who are no better than dumb animals.

    Let me say this, Dragon5126 has got it right, even though half-brains don't
    want to hear it and don't like to know it. Those with foggy and dull minds
    cannot see the blazing light of truth when it appears over the horizon of
    the narrow-visioned ones. Even the simplest analogies are not understood
    by these half-witts and are distorted by perfidy and erroneous reasoning
    to the point of utter absurdity.

    Crawl back to the swampy waters of the perennial ignorance that dull minds
    abide in with a sickening and undignified pleasure.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:19:28 GMT, Cyber Trekker spoketh


    >
    >I left this group because of idiots who cannot even understand the basic

    Instead of just dishing out a bunch of insults, why don't you read what
    I said before you open you big fat mouth?

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  43. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    One major point that seems to be neglected is that every attempt to access a
    closed wireless network does add traffic to the network even if it is
    denied. It also brings into play the " if I can see it I can use it"
    ideology. This is why wired ISPs disable SSID broadcast when hooking up a
    wireless network at a customers sight. It is also SOP in virtually every
    manufacturer of commercial equipment's manuals and installation protocols,
    in fact most of these mfgs have begun using 'DISABLE' as the default.
    More to the point, security is not a device or a setting, it is the active
    USE of such settings and other steps taken to protect the given subject. In
    all real world security applications (not just computer security), you first
    secure the simplest items and work up to the more difficult points so that
    the simplest is not forgotten. Not following this procedure is what has
    allowed the likes of Kevin Mitnic (sp) to gain their 15 minutes of
    notoriety. Another prime example can be found in the book Cuckoos Egg (or
    was it nest...) which is the account of an astronomer at Berkley who found a
    soviet spy accessing the defense net by using a simple security flaw in
    Unix.
    "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
    news:ie7de09v5bac1n8t6g7euruv7vmj069qk3@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:45:37 GMT, Dragon5126 spoketh
    >
    > >You people are arguing nonsense. I make a living addressing security
    issues
    > >such as this daily. First you need to understand the meaning of the term
    > >'ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE'.
    > >with SSID broadcast enabled you are putting up a swimming pool without a
    > >fence, some fool will see it and try to take a swim. Disabling SSID will
    > >deter the first level of attempts to gain unauthorized access.
    >
    > You're not wrong. You're not right either. Disabling SSID broadcast will
    > stop grandma from seeing the wireless network, it won't stop that
    > thirteen year old down the road because he's read about AirSnort and
    > other "cool" tools. And, if you're using good encryption (read: WPA
    > w/AES), then it doesn't really matter if they can see that the network
    > exists, as it's very unlikely that they'll be able to do anything with
    > the data they're getting...
    >
    > However, disabling the SSID broadcasts doesn't do any harm, so there's
    > no compelling reason not to disable it...
    >
    >
    > Lars M. Hansen
    > http://www.hansenonline.net
    > (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  44. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Your comments are completely out of line, unnecessary and unwelcomed.
    Still, you have a right to voice your opinion. It should be noted
    that the people who subscribe to this newsgroup range from amateurs to
    professionals. Many of the professionals in this group learned their
    craft by trial and error and so will the amateurs. Having said that,
    so what if someone offers not so perfect advice. Someone else will
    more than likely read the same posting and offer better advice. I
    enjoy reading the postings in this group and I am grateful for
    everyone who offers advice and assistance and that includes you. So
    to Lars. M Hansen, Ron Bandes and others who, in my opinion, offers
    the most advice, thank you.


    On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:19:28 GMT, Cyber Trekker
    <cybertrekker@cyberia.net> wrote:

    >Lars M. Hansen wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:45:37 GMT, Dragon5126 spoketh
    >>
    >>>You people are arguing nonsense. I make a living addressing security
    >>>issues such as this daily. First you need to understand the meaning of
    >>>the term
    >>>'ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE'.
    >>>with SSID broadcast enabled you are putting up a swimming pool without a
    >>>fence, some fool will see it and try to take a swim. Disabling SSID will
    >>>deter the first level of attempts to gain unauthorized access.
    >>
    >> You're not wrong. You're not right either.
    >
    >I left this group because of idiots who cannot even understand the basic
    >concept and principles behind security, but who by and large speak as
    >though they are authorities at the most or know what they are talking
    >about at the very least. I've temporarily re-subscribed to find nonsense
    >still pouring out of the dull minds and foul mouths of brainless humans
    >who are no better than dumb animals.
    >
    >Let me say this, Dragon5126 has got it right, even though half-brains don't
    >want to hear it and don't like to know it. Those with foggy and dull minds
    >cannot see the blazing light of truth when it appears over the horizon of
    >the narrow-visioned ones. Even the simplest analogies are not understood
    >by these half-witts and are distorted by perfidy and erroneous reasoning
    >to the point of utter absurdity.
    >
    >Crawl back to the swampy waters of the perennial ignorance that dull minds
    >abide in with a sickening and undignified pleasure.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Lars M. Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:

    > However, disabling the SSID broadcasts doesn't do any harm, so there's
    > no compelling reason not to disable it...

    But it isn't harmless. And the more it is adopted, the more harm it will
    do.

    SSID hiding makes it harder for users in a densely populated wireless
    networking environment to choose channels that will not interfere with
    other networks. Increasing interference problems will lead them either
    to give up on wireless networking or to use sniffer software. At the
    extreme, every wireless user will be disabling SSID and every wireless
    user will also be using sniffers to see other networks in their
    neighborhood. At that point, SSID hiding will have become utterly
    pointless. (And speaking of temptation, a few of those who resort to
    sniffer software just to diagnose their reception problems might be
    tempted to use it to crack their neighbors' encrypted networks.)

    Whether you find this a "compelling" reason or not, it is a reason, and
    it greatly outweighs the trivial current security benefits of SSID
    disabling.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > For those of you who disbelieve these FACTS, I suggest that you sign up for
    > Microsoft's Security TechNet and LEARN the facts before you continue to SPEW
    > the falsehoods that are prevailing in this newsgroup.

    Interestingly enough, the slides that are used on the TechNet security
    seminar make no reference to disabling SSID. They concentrate on 802.1x
    and WPA!

    The presenter may have chosen to discuss it but that's it, it's a
    discussion point.

    :)

    David.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:58:00 GMT, Neill Massello spoketh

    >Lars M. Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
    >
    >> However, disabling the SSID broadcasts doesn't do any harm, so there's
    >> no compelling reason not to disable it...
    >
    >But it isn't harmless. And the more it is adopted, the more harm it will
    >do.
    >
    >SSID hiding makes it harder for users in a densely populated wireless
    >networking environment to choose channels that will not interfere with
    >other networks.

    Disabling SSID broadcasts may make it difficult to see if there are
    other wireless networks around, but it doesn't have much to do with
    channel numbers. Even if you were my neighbor, and you did see my SSID
    come up as an available network, that wouldn't help you (in many cases)
    to figure out that my channel was interfering with yours. For instance,
    Microsofts' wireless configuration doesn't tell you what channel are
    being used by a network, so that doesn't really help you in determining
    anything. If you are getting interference, your best bet is to jump a
    few channels back and forth and see if your connection is restored.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  48. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote:

    > Interestingly enough, the slides that are used on the TechNet security
    > seminar make no reference to disabling SSID. They concentrate on 802.1x
    > and WPA!

    Pehaps because encryption is the only wireless security measure that's
    really worthy of the name. The rest -- SSID hiding and MAC filtering --
    are essentially toys.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "David Taylor" <djtaylor@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b51b423cf9b07d7989ca1@news.individual.de...
    > > For those of you who disbelieve these FACTS, I suggest that you sign up
    for
    > > Microsoft's Security TechNet and LEARN the facts before you continue to
    SPEW
    > > the falsehoods that are prevailing in this newsgroup.
    >
    > Interestingly enough, the slides that are used on the TechNet security
    > seminar make no reference to disabling SSID. They concentrate on 802.1x
    > and WPA!

    Also, at least one such seminar I found acknowledged that XP zero config
    doesn't work well with SSID-hiding, at least not if you want to use the
    auto-connect feature. Amazingly, the guy went on to list it as a possible
    security feature.

    Microsoft is huge, and in it there are experts and quasi-experts who will
    support any side of a debate. But the problem response in the Knowledge base
    at

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811427

    flatly states that Microsoft won't fix allegedly broken client software
    because they consider SSID suppression to be invalid. FWIW, I think that
    what they tell paying customers to justify not changing code is as close as
    they get to an official position on something as trivial as SSID hiding.

    Technet e-columns like "The Cable Guy" - and probably many, if not most,
    seminars - are the creations of technical writers. I'm sure they're smart,
    experienced people, but on technical issues I'll take a developer's word
    over a tech writers', and on policy issues, I'll take support's edicts to
    paying customers as final.

    >
    > The presenter may have chosen to discuss it but that's it, it's a
    > discussion point.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > David.
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless SSID Internet Wireless Networking