Can Host Try Connecting Even With No SSID?

Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of the
wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the option of
broadcasting the SSID.

But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in the
SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an annoyance.

Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with "Unnamed
Network" which has the strongest signal of all available wireless networks?
Or is this just the price I have to pay for "extra security"?

mavigozler wrote:
> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of the
> wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the option of
> broadcasting the SSID.
>
> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in the
> SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an annoyance.
>
> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with "Unnamed
> Network" which has the strongest signal of all available wireless networks?
> Or is this just the price I have to pay for "extra security"?
Put the SSID back. It's so easy to sniff out the SSID that there's no
point in this.
Just make sure you're using WPA with a strong passphrase.

mavigozler wrote:

>
> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of
> the wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the
> option of broadcasting the SSID.
>
> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in
> the SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an
> annoyance.
>
> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with
> "Unnamed Network" which has the strongest signal of all available
> wireless networks? Or is this just the price I have to pay for
> "extra security"?

That doesn't sound right to me.

I don't broadcast my ssid, but that does not require the passphrase to
be rekeyed every time - under xp and Ubuntu.

All you should have to do is key in the known ssid name and the
passphrase once and the PC should retain that information.

There's something screwy with your setup or the way you are using it.

While not broadcasting the ssid will not prevent sniffer porgrams
detecting yhe network, it will quite often make the address invisible
to ordinary network connection software as supplied with wifi adaptors.

Cheers

Rob

On 01/03/2009 10:35, me here wrote:
> mavigozler wrote:
>
>> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of
>> the wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the
>> option of broadcasting the SSID.
>>
>> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in
>> the SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an
>> annoyance.
>>
>> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with
>> "Unnamed Network" which has the strongest signal of all available
>> wireless networks? Or is this just the price I have to pay for
>> "extra security"?
>
> That doesn't sound right to me.
>
> I don't broadcast my ssid, but that does not require the passphrase to
> be rekeyed every time - under xp and Ubuntu.
>
> All you should have to do is key in the known ssid name and the
> passphrase once and the PC should retain that information.

XP which is fully updated and Vista have a checkbox in network
properties called "connect even if the network is not broadcasting" and
this must be checked.

>
> There's something screwy with your setup or the way you are using it.
>
> While not broadcasting the ssid will not prevent sniffer porgrams
> detecting yhe network, it will quite often make the address invisible
> to ordinary network connection software as supplied with wifi adaptors.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rob

LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote in alt.internet.wireless:

> On 01/03/2009 10:35, me here wrote:
>> mavigozler wrote:
>>
>>> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of
>>> the wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the
>>> option of broadcasting the SSID.
>>>
>>> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in
>>> the SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an
>>> annoyance.
>>>
>>> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with
>>> "Unnamed Network" which has the strongest signal of all available
>>> wireless networks? Or is this just the price I have to pay for
>>> "extra security"?
>>
>> That doesn't sound right to me.
>>
>> I don't broadcast my ssid, but that does not require the passphrase to
>> be rekeyed every time - under xp and Ubuntu.
>>
>> All you should have to do is key in the known ssid name and the
>> passphrase once and the PC should retain that information.
>
> XP which is fully updated and Vista have a checkbox in network
> properties called "connect even if the network is not broadcasting" and
> this must be checked.

With my Vista interface, once a successful connection is made giving the
SSID and the key/passphrase authentication, the user is presented with TWO
checkboxes:

"Save this network"

and the "Start this connection automatically"

In saving the network, it saves it to a list of all successfully connected
networks.

But here is the bizarre thing: when Vista sees an available wireless
network broadcasting its SSID, say it's "MyWirelessNet" and it is in the
list, it connect and even adds a new listing entry "MyWirelessNet 2" and
it increments each time, despite it being the same network!!

And the same goes for each time I manually connect by giving the SSID and
passphrase...it creates a new entry in the wireless networks successfully
connected table.

I am at a loss to know how Vista arrives at this.

What Vista should be doing is connecting to the network, finding it as the
name in the previously connected networks, and NOT presenting me with an
interface asking me to "Save this network" when it has already been saved.

This seems to be a Vista flaw, among tens of thousands.




>
>>
>> There's something screwy with your setup or the way you are using it.
>>
>> While not broadcasting the ssid will not prevent sniffer porgrams
>> detecting yhe network, it will quite often make the address invisible
>> to ordinary network connection software as supplied with wifi adaptors.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Rob
>
>

On 01/03/2009 11:06, mavigozler wrote:
> LR<lrme@privacy.net> wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>
>> On 01/03/2009 10:35, me here wrote:
>>> mavigozler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of
>>>> the wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the
>>>> option of broadcasting the SSID.
>>>>
>>>> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in
>>>> the SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an
>>>> annoyance.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with
>>>> "Unnamed Network" which has the strongest signal of all available
>>>> wireless networks? Or is this just the price I have to pay for
>>>> "extra security"?
>>> That doesn't sound right to me.
>>>
>>> I don't broadcast my ssid, but that does not require the passphrase to
>>> be rekeyed every time - under xp and Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> All you should have to do is key in the known ssid name and the
>>> passphrase once and the PC should retain that information.
>> XP which is fully updated and Vista have a checkbox in network
>> properties called "connect even if the network is not broadcasting" and
>> this must be checked.
>
> With my Vista interface, once a successful connection is made giving the
> SSID and the key/passphrase authentication, the user is presented with TWO
> checkboxes:
>
> "Save this network"
>
> and the "Start this connection automatically"
>
> In saving the network, it saves it to a list of all successfully connected
> networks.
>
> But here is the bizarre thing: when Vista sees an available wireless
> network broadcasting its SSID, say it's "MyWirelessNet" and it is in the
> list, it connect and even adds a new listing entry "MyWirelessNet 2" and
> it increments each time, despite it being the same network!!
>
> And the same goes for each time I manually connect by giving the SSID and
> passphrase...it creates a new entry in the wireless networks successfully
> connected table.
>
> I am at a loss to know how Vista arrives at this.
>
> What Vista should be doing is connecting to the network, finding it as the
> name in the previously connected networks, and NOT presenting me with an
> interface asking me to "Save this network" when it has already been saved.
>
> This seems to be a Vista flaw, among tens of thousands.

Have you checked the box I referred to?
Some wireless adapters will not work properly with Vista's method of
handling hidden SSID's.
"Currently there are several widely-distributed WLAN drivers which
either do not support or do not work properly with the Vista method of
dealing with non-broadcast SSIDs, including the Intel 3945ABG and the
Broadcom 802.11g Network Adapters.

The Intel 3945ABG adapter is very widely distributed in current laptop
models. The latest Intel driver provides improvement but does not
address all issues with hidden SSIDs encountered when roaming or
resuming from hibernation.

Broadcom does not show any unnamed networks, and they are not planning
to fix this. One of the reasons, besides being low priority for them, is
also to push customers to stop hiding the SSID, which creates a problem
instead of solving it."
<http://blogs.technet.com/networking/archive/2008/02/08/non-broadcast-wireless-ssids-why-hidden-wireless-networks-are-a-bad-idea.aspx>

mavigozler wrote:
> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of the
> wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the option of
> broadcasting the SSID.
>
> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type in the
> SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is an annoyance.
>
> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with "Unnamed
> Network" which has the strongest signal of all available wireless networks?
> Or is this just the price I have to pay for "extra security"?

Yes, turn SID broadcasting back on. What you read is just the nonsense
that "expert columnists" just keep repeating to fill space. Turning off
SSID broadcasting just causes more trouble for you (as you found) and
those within range of your router.

LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote in alt.internet.wireless:

> On 01/03/2009 11:06, mavigozler wrote:
>> LR<lrme@privacy.net> wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>>
>>> On 01/03/2009 10:35, me here wrote:
>>>> mavigozler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some columnist at PCWorld recommended "increasing the security" of
>>>>> the wireless router against unwanted connections by removing the
>>>>> option of broadcasting the SSID.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that means on my host running WinVistaHomePrem, I have to type
>>>>> in the SSID and network key/passphrase every time, which for me is
>>>>> an annoyance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't there a way of getting my host to persist in connecting with
>>>>> "Unnamed Network" which has the strongest signal of all available
>>>>> wireless networks? Or is this just the price I have to pay for
>>>>> "extra security"?
>>>> That doesn't sound right to me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't broadcast my ssid, but that does not require the passphrase
>>>> to be rekeyed every time - under xp and Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> All you should have to do is key in the known ssid name and the
>>>> passphrase once and the PC should retain that information.
>>> XP which is fully updated and Vista have a checkbox in network
>>> properties called "connect even if the network is not broadcasting"
>>> and this must be checked.
>>
>> With my Vista interface, once a successful connection is made giving
>> the SSID and the key/passphrase authentication, the user is presented
>> with TWO checkboxes:
>>
>> "Save this network"
>>
>> and the "Start this connection automatically"
>>
>> In saving the network, it saves it to a list of all successfully
>> connected networks.
>>
>> But here is the bizarre thing: when Vista sees an available wireless
>> network broadcasting its SSID, say it's "MyWirelessNet" and it is in
>> the list, it connect and even adds a new listing entry "MyWirelessNet
>> 2" and it increments each time, despite it being the same network!!
>>
>> And the same goes for each time I manually connect by giving the SSID
>> and passphrase...it creates a new entry in the wireless networks
>> successfully connected table.
>>
>> I am at a loss to know how Vista arrives at this.
>>
>> What Vista should be doing is connecting to the network, finding it
>> as the name in the previously connected networks, and NOT presenting
>> me with an interface asking me to "Save this network" when it has
>> already been saved.
>>
>> This seems to be a Vista flaw, among tens of thousands.
>
> Have you checked the box I referred to?
> Some wireless adapters will not work properly with Vista's method of
> handling hidden SSID's.
> "Currently there are several widely-distributed WLAN drivers which
> either do not support or do not work properly with the Vista method of
> dealing with non-broadcast SSIDs, including the Intel 3945ABG and the
> Broadcom 802.11g Network Adapters.
>
> The Intel 3945ABG adapter is very widely distributed in current laptop
> models. The latest Intel driver provides improvement but does not
> address all issues with hidden SSIDs encountered when roaming or
> resuming from hibernation.
>
> Broadcom does not show any unnamed networks, and they are not planning
> to fix this. One of the reasons, besides being low priority for them,
> is also to push customers to stop hiding the SSID, which creates a
> problem instead of solving it."
> <http://blogs.technet.com/networking/...on-broadcast-w
> ireless-ssids-why-hidden-wireless-networks-are-a-bad-idea.aspx>

Now you can understand why I posted my problem to here....to learn about
the very things you are telling me in your response.

My notebook is the HP Pavilion dv9500t which comes the the Intel Wireless
WiFi Link 4965AGN. You listed a bunch of exceptions and I suppose I would
guess that my wireless adapter is part of them.

From you and others, I have heard enough to believe that stopping the
broadcast of the SSID is not really a security enhancement and fully an
annoyance.

Thanks.

> Yes, turn SID broadcasting back on. What you read is just the nonsense
> that "expert columnists" just keep repeating to fill space. Turning off
> SSID broadcasting just causes more trouble for you (as you found) and
> those within range of your router.

Agreed. You may, however, want to use a name that doesn't have meaning
outside the intended users. If you'd rather not have J.Random Idiot seeing
the network name and see it as an interesting target for abuse.

It's a shame there's not a standard way for a wifi network to 'publish'
identifying information. You could, of course, use hotspot software to
present a splash page. But not all routers support it.

-Bill Kearney