Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSID Broadcast

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:40 PM

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!

More about : ssid broadcast

Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:41 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:41 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:42 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:43 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:16:44 PM

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
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 6:41:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 19, 2004 11:15:03 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 2:26:39 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 2:33:07 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 5:13:37 AM

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:D a3Bc.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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 10:22:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 20, 2004 11:29:22 PM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 21, 2004 8:47:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 21, 2004 8:52:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 21, 2004 10:20:41 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 21, 2004 10:20:42 PM

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)
June 23, 2004 1:21:07 AM

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!
>
>
June 23, 2004 5:40:13 AM

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!
> >
> >
>
>
June 23, 2004 10:56:23 AM

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
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 24, 2004 8:07:29 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 24, 2004 10:31:42 PM

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.
June 25, 2004 4:56:19 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 25, 2004 10:25:42 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 25, 2004 10:33:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 25, 2004 8:25:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 25, 2004 8:27:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 1:03:22 AM

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!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 1:05:12 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 5:18:40 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 8:40:31 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 9:03:38 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 9:39:58 PM

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.
June 26, 2004 10:00:37 PM

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

"Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
news:o xiDc.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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 26, 2004 11:43:56 PM

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

"gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9RiDc.8535$TM2.71@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ron Bandes" <RunderscoreBandes @yah00.com> wrote in message
> news:o xiDc.6979$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.
June 27, 2004 2:25:47 AM

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:o xiDc.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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 29, 2004 1:14:27 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 29, 2004 1:17:21 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 29, 2004 1:21:18 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 12:45:37 PM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 12:45:38 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 5:19:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 5:19:29 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 5:26:11 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 3, 2004 8:22:24 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 4, 2004 2:58:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 4, 2004 11:29:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 4, 2004 3:17:46 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 4, 2004 5:57:08 PM

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.
July 4, 2004 8:19:52 PM

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.
!