|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Detecting a wireless SSID
I enjoy learning about wireless networks and I have a few installed in my apartment. I have a question. If a the SSID of a WLAN is not broadcasted, how can a hacker discover the network? What types of software would he use? For my home, I use NetStumbler, but because my SSID is disabled, it won't detect it. I'm trying to understand if there are any other security holes. I've enabled encryption, MAC filtering, limited IP range, and disabled SSID. Thanks for the help! Duy Believe me, you have done everything right. Unless you have a Super Hacker
that is an enemy, I would not worry about it. Robert.... <dngu***@gmail.com> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1107062794.317440.183690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Hi Everyone, > > I enjoy learning about wireless networks and I have a few installed in > my apartment. I have a question. If a the SSID of a WLAN is not > broadcasted, how can a hacker discover the network? What types of > software would he use? > > For my home, I use NetStumbler, but because my SSID is disabled, it > won't detect it. I'm trying to understand if there are any other > security holes. I've enabled encryption, MAC filtering, limited IP > range, and disabled SSID. Thanks for the help! > > Duy > "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in news:IU_Kd.4411$To.3800@trnddc09: > Believe me, you have done everything right. Unless you have a No, he hasn't done everything right> Super Hacker that is an enemy, I would not worry about it. Yes, he shouldn't worry about it > <dngu***@gmail.com> wrote in message The SSID is *intended* to be broadcast. Hiding it is a bogus security > news:1107062794.317440.183690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> I enjoy learning about wireless networks and I have a few >> installed in my apartment. I have a question. If a the SSID of >> a WLAN is not broadcasted, how can a hacker discover the >> network? What types of software would he use? >> For my home, I use NetStumbler, but because my SSID is disabled, >> it won't detect it. I'm trying to understand if there are any >> other security holes. I've enabled encryption, MAC filtering, >> limited IP range, and disabled SSID. Thanks for the help! measure. The SSID is always broadcast and *cannot* be hidden - just because NetStumbler does not report it is a function of the way the tool works. Hiding the SSID will cause useful things to not work properly, or at all. Have a look here: <http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/WLAN/wp_ssid_hiding.pdf> Security ahould be based on encryption and authentication. 'Security by obscurity' is no security at all. In order: - As best you can (username, strong password) secure the access to your wireless access point's config. - If you have WEP, use it. It's crackability is often exaggerated. - If you have WPA-PSK, use it. Although the encryption is the same as WEP, the fact that the keys are changed frequently (TKIP) means there isn't enough time to crack it. - If you have - or can set up - a RADIUS server, use WPA. This will provide proper authentication - If you have AES encryption available (part of WPA2), use it. This uses a more secure encryption algorithm and is the best solution currently available for securing a home wireless network. All other commonly touted 'security' techniques are simply 'security by obscurity'. A cracker will have the tools to overcome them. At best, you are making it more difficult for your friendly next door neighbour to accidentally access your network. You are not deterring anyone with determination. Hope this helps -- Richard Perkin To email me, change the AT in the address below richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News ahh, saw the rest of your post. I dont believe anyone around here has ever
said not broadcasting your SSID was a security function, it just keeps nozzy people away. And as far as making things not work on your network, thats bull. If you set a device to access a certain SSID, even if its not broadcasting, it will connect if its working properly. And I belive I stated that it wont keep out someone that is determined, but most crackers wont bother with secured networks as there are so many open ones. Show quoteHide quote "Richard Perkin" <f000nur***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns95EE7556AF59Bfnurdle@130.133.1.4... > "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in > news:IU_Kd.4411$To.3800@trnddc09: > >> Believe me, you have done everything right. Unless you have a >> Super Hacker that is an enemy, I would not worry about it. > > No, he hasn't done everything right > Yes, he shouldn't worry about it > >> <dngu***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1107062794.317440.183690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >>> I enjoy learning about wireless networks and I have a few >>> installed in my apartment. I have a question. If a the SSID of >>> a WLAN is not broadcasted, how can a hacker discover the >>> network? What types of software would he use? > >>> For my home, I use NetStumbler, but because my SSID is disabled, >>> it won't detect it. I'm trying to understand if there are any >>> other security holes. I've enabled encryption, MAC filtering, >>> limited IP range, and disabled SSID. Thanks for the help! > > The SSID is *intended* to be broadcast. Hiding it is a bogus security > measure. The SSID is always broadcast and *cannot* be hidden - just > because NetStumbler does not report it is a function of the way the > tool works. > > Hiding the SSID will cause useful things to not work properly, or at > all. Have a look here: > <http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/WLAN/wp_ssid_hiding.pdf> > > Security ahould be based on encryption and authentication. 'Security by > obscurity' is no security at all. > > In order: > > - As best you can (username, strong password) secure the access to your > wireless access point's config. > > - If you have WEP, use it. It's crackability is often exaggerated. > > - If you have WPA-PSK, use it. Although the encryption is the same as > WEP, the fact that the keys are changed frequently (TKIP) means there > isn't enough time to crack it. > > - If you have - or can set up - a RADIUS server, use WPA. This will > provide proper authentication > > - If you have AES encryption available (part of WPA2), use it. This > uses a more secure encryption algorithm and is the best solution > currently available for securing a home wireless network. > > All other commonly touted 'security' techniques are simply 'security by > obscurity'. A cracker will have the tools to overcome them. At best, > you are making it more difficult for your friendly next door neighbour > to accidentally access your network. You are not deterring anyone with > determination. > > Hope this helps > > -- > > Richard Perkin > To email me, change the AT in the address below > richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com > > It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it > is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. > It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. > -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in news:5W3Ld.4861$To.2153@trnddc09: > ahh, saw the rest of your post. Please do not top post. If you hadn't fallen into this bad habit :) then you might have read my whole post... > ... I dont believe anyone around here No, that's what I said. But many others have fallen into the error of > has ever said not broadcasting your SSID was a security function, beliveing that a broadcast SSID is somehow 'bad' and introduces a security hole. It doesn't. I believe the eror dates from early days when wireless security was less well understood, and it is now repeated without any justification. However, it's not really sensible for commercial organisations to reveal their identity, so using an SSID which is not the same as your business name is a good thing. But that's not the same as security... > it just keeps nozzy people away. No it doesn't - it creates a problem.Things stop working, or stop working well. At its simplest, neighbours cannot see your network with (for example) the usual supplier's utility program for setting up a card, and so may use a channel which overlaps with a channel already in use. This causes interference. You're just being a 'bad neighbour'. I repeat: the SSID is *designed* to be broadcast. As a more complex example, an Extended Service Set and roaming will not work properly without it. >... And as far as making things not Nope, you're *wrong*> work on your network, thats bull. > ... If you set a device to access a I never said otherwise. But if that's all you think the SSID is for, > certain SSID, even if its not broadcasting, it will connect if its > working properly. I regret to say that you're wrong. > ... And I belive I stated that it wont keep out Please read the paper in the link above. If you disagree with what it > someone that is determined, but most crackers wont bother with > secured networks as there are so many open ones. Agreed >> The SSID is *intended* to be broadcast. Hiding it is a bogus >> security measure. The SSID is always broadcast and *cannot* be >> hidden - just because NetStumbler does not report it is a >> function of the way the tool works. >> Hiding the SSID will cause useful things to not work properly, or >> at all. Have a look here: >> <http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/WLAN/wp_ssid_hiding.pdf> says, I'd be interested to hear your arguments. Kind regards -- Richard Perkin To email me, change the AT in the address below richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out these things,
but I will say that most home network users dont go arount roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most people will have problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. Show quoteHide quote "Richard Perkin" <f000nur***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns95EE845016805fnurdle@130.133.1.4... > "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in > news:5W3Ld.4861$To.2153@trnddc09: > >> ahh, saw the rest of your post. > Please do not top post. If you hadn't fallen into this bad habit :) > then you might have read my whole post... > >> ... I dont believe anyone around here >> has ever said not broadcasting your SSID was a security function, > No, that's what I said. But many others have fallen into the error of > beliveing that a broadcast SSID is somehow 'bad' and introduces a > security hole. It doesn't. I believe the eror dates from early days > when wireless security was less well understood, and it is now > repeated without any justification. > > However, it's not really sensible for commercial organisations to > reveal their identity, so using an SSID which is not the same as your > business name is a good thing. But that's not the same as security... > >> it just keeps nozzy people away. > No it doesn't - it creates a problem. > Things stop working, or stop working well. > At its simplest, neighbours cannot see your network with (for > example) the usual supplier's utility program for setting up a card, > and so may use a channel which overlaps with a channel already in > use. This causes interference. You're just being a 'bad neighbour'. > > I repeat: the SSID is *designed* to be broadcast. As a more complex > example, an Extended Service Set and roaming will not work properly > without it. > >>... And as far as making things not >> work on your network, thats bull. > Nope, you're *wrong* > >> ... If you set a device to access a >> certain SSID, even if its not broadcasting, it will connect if its >> working properly. > I never said otherwise. But if that's all you think the SSID is for, > I regret to say that you're wrong. > >> ... And I belive I stated that it wont keep out >> someone that is determined, but most crackers wont bother with >> secured networks as there are so many open ones. > Agreed > >>> The SSID is *intended* to be broadcast. Hiding it is a bogus >>> security measure. The SSID is always broadcast and *cannot* be >>> hidden - just because NetStumbler does not report it is a >>> function of the way the tool works. > >>> Hiding the SSID will cause useful things to not work properly, or >>> at all. Have a look here: >>> <http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/WLAN/wp_ssid_hiding.pdf> > > Please read the paper in the link above. If you disagree with what it > says, I'd be interested to hear your arguments. > > Kind regards > > -- > > Richard Perkin > To email me, change the AT in the address below > richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com > > It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it > is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. > It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. > -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in news:Er5Ld.3344$zb.630@trnddc07: > I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out Please do not top post.> these things, but I will say that most home network users dont go > arount roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most > people will have problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. As far as you comment goes: 1. You say "I won't dispute the article". Good. It does of course state with justification that SSID 'hiding' is not possible, nor any form of security. In that case, why do it? 2. What evidence do you have about "most home network users", or indeed the absolute numbers who are affected? How large is your home? How solidly is it constructed? Do you have any outbuildings where you require network access? Do you or anyone who you know use a repeater? That's an example where an ESS is formed from the multiple access points and roaming will/should occur. My moderately large network covers a large area, and I use two additional access points to increase coverage and remove dead spots. 3. As far as not having problems is concerned, here is a statement from Microsoft (OK, OK...): <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811427 &Product=winxp> showing something else that doesn't work properly when SSID broadcast is disabled. 4. As I said earlier, 'hiding' your network from your neighbour can leads to interference. All you're doing is being a bad neighbour... Stopping SSID broadcast is a myth. It can't be done - yes, the transmission of beacon frames can be disabled (in violation of IEEE 802.11), but the SSID is *always* transmitted in other frames. It cannot be stopped. It's not designed to be stopped. It causes problems. It leads to the 'bad neighbour' syndrome, potentially causing interference. It does not increase security. So why do it? Kind regards -- Richard Perkin To email me, change the AT in the address below richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News Yawnnn, Dam!!!!!! top posted again........ As far as the SSID, I will not
broadcast mine and my network will continue to work just fine, and you continue to broadcast yours and your network will work just fine.... Show quoteHide quote "Richard Perkin" <f000nur***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns95EEDD2196498fnurdle@130.133.1.4... > "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in > news:Er5Ld.3344$zb.630@trnddc07: > >> I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out >> these things, but I will say that most home network users dont go >> arount roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most >> people will have problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. > Please do not top post. > > As far as you comment goes: > 1. You say "I won't dispute the article". Good. It does of course > state with justification that SSID 'hiding' is not possible, nor any > form of security. In that case, why do it? > > 2. What evidence do you have about "most home network users", or > indeed the absolute numbers who are affected? How large is your home? > How solidly is it constructed? Do you have any outbuildings where you > require network access? Do you or anyone who you know use a repeater? > That's an example where an ESS is formed from the multiple access > points and roaming will/should occur. My moderately large network > covers a large area, and I use two additional access points to > increase coverage and remove dead spots. > > 3. As far as not having problems is concerned, here is a statement > from Microsoft (OK, OK...): > <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811427 > &Product=winxp> > showing something else that doesn't work properly when SSID broadcast > is disabled. > > 4. As I said earlier, 'hiding' your network from your neighbour can > leads to interference. All you're doing is being a bad neighbour... > > Stopping SSID broadcast is a myth. It can't be done - yes, the > transmission of beacon frames can be disabled (in violation of IEEE > 802.11), but the SSID is *always* transmitted in other frames. > > It cannot be stopped. It's not designed to be stopped. It causes > problems. It leads to the 'bad neighbour' syndrome, potentially > causing interference. It does not increase security. So why do it? > > Kind regards > > -- > > Richard Perkin > To email me, change the AT in the address below > richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com > > It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it > is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. > It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. > -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote: Richard Perkin is right though, on both counts...>Yawnnn, Dam!!!!!! top posted again........ As far as the SSID, I will not >broadcast mine and my network will continue to work just fine, and you >continue to broadcast yours and your network will work just fine.... -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com Oh, great. Another king. Just what we always wanted. And, yes, I top
posted this, just to aggravate your sorry ass. Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Show quoteHide quote > "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>Yawnnn, Dam!!!!!! top posted again........ As far as the SSID, I will not >>broadcast mine and my network will continue to work just fine, and you >>continue to broadcast yours and your network will work just fine.... > > > Richard Perkin is right though, on both counts... > Grizzly Bear <m*@privacy.net> wrote:
>Oh, great. Another king. Just what we always wanted. And, That's okay... none of us were born old and wise; if we get>yes, I top posted this, just to aggravate your sorry ass. there it is almost always very slowly. Somebody changed my diapers once upon a time, and I don't mind changing yours... ;-) Different people post for different reasons, obviously. If you want to enjoy yourself by annoying people, top posting insults and not trimming excess text is a good start (though you'll eventually find there are better ways). On the other hand, you might want to study effective writing styles for Usenet. You'll find it opens a much wider range ways to enjoy Usenet. You can shift between learning, helping, and annoying rather than just being a one track recording! >Floyd L. Davidson wrote: And nothing you've said changes the fact that Richard was indeed> >> "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>>Yawnnn, Dam!!!!!! top posted again........ As far as the SSID, I will not >>>broadcast mine and my network will continue to work just fine, and you >>>continue to broadcast yours and your network will work just fine.... >> >> Richard Perkin is right though, on both counts... correct. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com Robert Jacobs wrote:
> Yawnnn, Dam!!!!!! top posted again........ Good on ya' !!!! Go for it!!!Show quoteHide quote > As far as the SSID, I will not > broadcast mine and my network will continue to work just fine, and you > continue to broadcast yours and your network will work just fine.... > > > "Richard Perkin" <f000nur***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns95EEDD2196498fnurdle@130.133.1.4... > >>"Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in >>news:Er5Ld.3344$zb.630@trnddc07: >> >> >>>I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out >>>these things, but I will say that most home network users dont go >>>arount roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most >>>people will have problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. >> >>Please do not top post. >> >>As far as you comment goes: >>1. You say "I won't dispute the article". Good. It does of course >>state with justification that SSID 'hiding' is not possible, nor any >>form of security. In that case, why do it? >> >>2. What evidence do you have about "most home network users", or >>indeed the absolute numbers who are affected? How large is your home? >>How solidly is it constructed? Do you have any outbuildings where you >>require network access? Do you or anyone who you know use a repeater? >>That's an example where an ESS is formed from the multiple access >>points and roaming will/should occur. My moderately large network >>covers a large area, and I use two additional access points to >>increase coverage and remove dead spots. >> >>3. As far as not having problems is concerned, here is a statement >>from Microsoft (OK, OK...): >><http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811427 >>&Product=winxp> >>showing something else that doesn't work properly when SSID broadcast >>is disabled. >> >>4. As I said earlier, 'hiding' your network from your neighbour can >>leads to interference. All you're doing is being a bad neighbour... >> >>Stopping SSID broadcast is a myth. It can't be done - yes, the >>transmission of beacon frames can be disabled (in violation of IEEE >>802.11), but the SSID is *always* transmitted in other frames. >> >>It cannot be stopped. It's not designed to be stopped. It causes >>problems. It leads to the 'bad neighbour' syndrome, potentially >>causing interference. It does not increase security. So why do it? >> >>Kind regards >> >>-- >> >>Richard Perkin >>To email me, change the AT in the address below >>richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com >> >>It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it >>is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. >>It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. >>-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News > > > Richard Perkin wrote:
> "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in Just WTF is so sacred about bottom posting? It's a real PITA after > news:Er5Ld.3344$zb.630@trnddc07: > > >>I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out >>these things, but I will say that most home network users dont go >>arount roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most >>people will have problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. > > Please do not top post. you've read 20 messages in a long thread to scroll all the way to the bottom of a LONG post with all the quotes just to get the latest one. Who the hell made you the king, anyway? Take your personal rules and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine. Show quoteHide quote > > As far as you comment goes: > 1. You say "I won't dispute the article". Good. It does of course > state with justification that SSID 'hiding' is not possible, nor any > form of security. In that case, why do it? > > 2. What evidence do you have about "most home network users", or > indeed the absolute numbers who are affected? How large is your home? > How solidly is it constructed? Do you have any outbuildings where you > require network access? Do you or anyone who you know use a repeater? > That's an example where an ESS is formed from the multiple access > points and roaming will/should occur. My moderately large network > covers a large area, and I use two additional access points to > increase coverage and remove dead spots. > > 3. As far as not having problems is concerned, here is a statement > from Microsoft (OK, OK...): > <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811427 > &Product=winxp> > showing something else that doesn't work properly when SSID broadcast > is disabled. > > 4. As I said earlier, 'hiding' your network from your neighbour can > leads to interference. All you're doing is being a bad neighbour... > > Stopping SSID broadcast is a myth. It can't be done - yes, the > transmission of beacon frames can be disabled (in violation of IEEE > 802.11), but the SSID is *always* transmitted in other frames. > > It cannot be stopped. It's not designed to be stopped. It causes > problems. It leads to the 'bad neighbour' syndrome, potentially > causing interference. It does not increase security. So why do it? > > Kind regards > Grizzly Bear wrote:
> Just WTF is so sacred about bottom posting? It's a real PITA after 1. Learn how to post in a newsgroup! ALL THE RULES!!!> you've read 20 messages in a long thread to scroll all the way to the > bottom of a LONG post with all the quotes just to get the latest one. > Who the hell made you the king, anyway? Take your personal rules and > shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine. 2. Learn how to express yourself! 3. Try again! But not before you finished 1. and 2. Thomas Thomas Krüger wrote:
> Grizzly Bear wrote: your a funny dick , its recommendation not law , wake up to your self> > >>Just WTF is so sacred about bottom posting? It's a real PITA after >>you've read 20 messages in a long thread to scroll all the way to the >>bottom of a LONG post with all the quotes just to get the latest one. >>Who the hell made you the king, anyway? Take your personal rules and >>shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine. > > > 1. Learn how to post in a newsgroup! ALL THE RULES!!! > 2. Learn how to express yourself! it appears he did quite well enough to get under your skin> 3. Try again! But not before you finished 1. and 2. I doubt you are able to make Grizz do as you suggest , so what are you going to do now ? Show quoteHide quote > > Thomas atec wrote:
> I doubt you are able to make Grizz do as you suggest , so what are you One short term:> going to do now ? *plonk* (Put Lamer on Killfile) :-) Thomas Thomas Krüger wrote:
> atec wrote: and we lose how ?> > >> I doubt you are able to make Grizz do as you suggest , so what are you >> going to do now ? > > > One short term: > *plonk* (Put Lamer on Killfile) :-) > > > Thomas missing your sparkling re pate' ? I doubt that :_) CAN I BE ON THAT KILL FILE THING TO?? PLEASE !!!! PLEASE!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!
DAMN, TOP POSTED AND ALL CAPS........ IM A LOOSE CANNON....... Show quoteHide quote "Thomas Krüger" <newsgroups@nospam.nowire.org> wrote in message news:d01o5j$b1j$03$1@news.t-online.com... > atec wrote: > >> I doubt you are able to make Grizz do as you suggest , so what are you >> going to do now ? > > One short term: > *plonk* (Put Lamer on Killfile) :-) > > > Thomas Grizzly Bear <m*@privacy.net> wrote:
>Just WTF is so sacred about bottom posting? It's a real PITA after Ever hear of a concept called trimming? Kids these days...>you've read 20 messages in a long thread to scroll all the way to the >bottom of a LONG post with all the quotes just to get the latest one. Grizzly Bear <m*@privacy.net> wrote:
>Richard Perkin wrote: It has a great deal of advantage, given that the natural order>> Please do not top post. > >Just WTF is so sacred about bottom posting? for reading and discussion is right to left and top to bottom; and if each response immediately follows the text that it refers to, there is an obvious relationship. Articles which put the response entirely above the quoted text of the article they are replying to 1) assume the reader already knows what the original article said, and 2) that the reader can tell exactly which part of the response relates to which part of the original. Both are bad assumptions in general, but are much more so in a technical discussion than in a "chit chat" exchange. >It's a real PITA Perhaps you need a better new reader then? Or maybe you just>after you've read 20 messages in a long thread to scroll all the >way to the bottom of a LONG post with all the quotes just to get >the latest one. need to learn a few simple commands. For example, I can skip to the bottom of an article by pressing "Shift" and ">" keys together. Your news read can probably do the same thing. You have a disadvantage though, because my news reader is built in emacs, which I've been using for more than 20 years... so the various commands have long since been learned by my fingers, and I don't even begin to think about how to do things like that. >Who the hell made you the king, anyway? Take Now that you have learned not to top post... learn to trim>your personal rules and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine. excessive quoted text too! That way at least *your* articles won't be hard to read like the ones you refer to where it's necessary to scroll all the way through a pile of useless quoted text just to read a one line (and usually stupid) comment! -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused:
| ... except then you run the risk of multiple networks all being on the | I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out these | things, but I will say that most home network users dont go arount | roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most people will have | problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. same channel, and interfering with out another ... with no one being the wiser since they can't see them. Well, that could be true, but I for one would just troubleshoot it.
"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message news:3VcMd.44097$EG1.25515@attbi_s53...Show quoteHide quote > Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused: > | > | I wont dispute the article, since I dont go arount testing out these > | things, but I will say that most home network users dont go arount > | roaming from one AP to the other, so I dont think most people will have > | problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. > > ... except then you run the risk of multiple networks all being on the > same channel, and interfering with out another ... with no one being the > wiser since they can't see them. > > >"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message But you still haven't explained _how_ you'd troubleshoot it. Care to>> Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused: >> | I dont think most people will have >> | problems with not broadcasting thier SSID. >> ... except then you run the risk of multiple networks all being on the >> same channel, and interfering with out another ... with no one being the >> wiser since they can't see them. "Robert Jacobs" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> top-posted: >Well, that could be true, but I for one would just troubleshoot it. enlighten us? Randomly change the channel and see if that helps? Dig out your spectrum analyzer? Taking a moment's reflection, William P.N. Smith mused:
| In fact, that was the last we heard from him. Perhaps he's off | But you still haven't explained _how_ you'd troubleshoot it. Care to | enlighten us? Randomly change the channel and see if that helps? Dig | out your spectrum analyzer? troubleshooting? ;-) Nope, just watching all the rantings. As I said before, I will continue to
not transmit my SSID and be just as happy, if not more, then all you that transmit yours...... "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message news:a30Vd.20117$r55.11698@attbi_s52...Show quoteHide quote > Taking a moment's reflection, William P.N. Smith mused: > | > | But you still haven't explained _how_ you'd troubleshoot it. Care to > | enlighten us? Randomly change the channel and see if that helps? Dig > | out your spectrum analyzer? > > In fact, that was the last we heard from him. Perhaps he's off > troubleshooting? ;-) > > Taking a moment's reflection, DLink Guru mused:
| Do what you want, I don't have to use your network.| Nope, just watching all the rantings. As I said before, I will continue to | not transmit my SSID and be just as happy, if not more, then all you that | transmit yours...... Exactly....
"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message news:hfoVd.85142$4q6.66800@attbi_s01...Show quoteHide quote > Taking a moment's reflection, DLink Guru mused: > | > | Nope, just watching all the rantings. As I said before, I will continue > to > | not transmit my SSID and be just as happy, if not more, then all you > that > | transmit yours...... > > Do what you want, I don't have to use your network. > > Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused:
| ... and what would you find given that all the networks that are causing | Well, that could be true, but I for one would just troubleshoot it. the issue are hidden, and you don't know they exist? Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused:
| Not lately, but people used to recommend it all the time here.| ahh, saw the rest of your post. I dont believe anyone around here has ever | said not broadcasting your SSID was a security function, it just keeps | nozzy people away. And as far as making things not work on your network, | thats bull. If you set a device to access a certain SSID, even if its not | broadcasting, it will connect if its working properly. As for disabling SSID breaking functionality being bull ... it's not. With SSID disabled, my Linksys WPG54G will not consistently connect to my wireless network. Then you have something setup wrong in your wireless connection.
"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message news:CTcMd.43792$IV5.34969@attbi_s54...Show quoteHide quote > Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused: > | > | ahh, saw the rest of your post. I dont believe anyone around here has > ever > | said not broadcasting your SSID was a security function, it just keeps > | nozzy people away. And as far as making things not work on your network, > | thats bull. If you set a device to access a certain SSID, even if its > not > | broadcasting, it will connect if its working properly. > > Not lately, but people used to recommend it all the time here. > > As for disabling SSID breaking functionality being bull ... it's not. > With SSID disabled, my Linksys WPG54G will not consistently connect to my > wireless network. > > Taking a moment's reflection, Robert Jacobs mused:
| Yes. That would explain why it connects every time with SSID enabled | Then you have something setup wrong in your wireless connection. .... not. Disabling SSID broadcast is outside od spec, plain and simple. Disabling it can, and does, break things unnecessarily. 
Other interesting topics
Range on a pair of Belkin 54G routers in wireless bridge mode?
Is it legal to access an open wi-fi access point? Basic megabit/megabyte question Linksys or Netgear? one adapter connects the other doesn't on XP laptop to SMC router Linksys WRT54G & ?Bridging? D-Link Blues: USB adapter connects to router, no internet access Wfi over water Cisco 1231G WPA2 (AES) wireless lan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
