Wireless Disconnects

Not assuming, just pointing out that the statement is not strictly true and giving an example.

So you must think that the SSID name not being the router default does makes a tiny bit of difference and that's why you propogate counter- intelligence.

Good point about the MAC. Still, none of this is what is being questioned. It comes down to this:

"Is there significant security gained by obscuring location with ssid that justifies making it a bit harder for the community as a whole to coordinate it's wifi connections in crowded areas?

It's a question of finding norms that balance the need to share the public airwaves with individual's need for security and privacy. After all, using a public resource (by turning on a radio transmitter) has always carried responsibility to the public as well. If a certain action is somewhat counter productive to the group yet actually benefits no individual, then maybe it should be examined.

Steve

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:43:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote in :

I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.

Resorting to personal attacks is a sure sign that you don't have anything more persuasive to say.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:16:39 GMT, David Fairbrother wrote in :

Indeed -- I'd say excellent -- but still fiction. I'm reminded of how Ronnie Reagan thought he had experience of some things from just having acted in a movie about them. ;)

Usenet is worse -- many people claim things here just because they think they should be true, or simply make things up. :O

What started this was the claim:

The crims don't burgle their neighbours (nothing ot nick), they come burgle in the nice part of town.

I can't speak for the UK, but in general that's just not true here in the USA; e.g., burglary rates for two nearby towns here in the San Francisco Bay Area: Palo Alto 234 (nice part of town) East Palo Alto 339 (not nice) [2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement] (I know, I know, facts are off-topic here. Lost my head.)

Not necessary, but it can be helpful/useful if there's something wrong with your wireless. When setting up wireless for clients and noticing an open network or other wireless configuration issue, if the SSID gives some clue as to who it is, I'll often contact and alert the owner, for which I often get effusive thanks. There have also been cases where I've gotten neighbors together to agree on a channel allocation that minimized mutual interference. But if there's no clue in the SSID, in most cases I won't bother because of the time and trouble it would take to track them down.

I respectfully disagree. Security through obscurity is of little value. Worse, it tends to give a false sense of security. Identification in the SSID is something with more upside than downside, little or no real risk.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:16:22 -0800 (PST), seaweedsl wrote in :

Very well put.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:40:26 +0000, LR wrote in :

That's a key generation weakness that has nothing to do with the SSID. It's part of why I don't like key generation algorithms, and instead recommend the use of diceware.

I don't think the number of such phones is large enough to be significant. I think the more likely tools are cheap Wi-Fi Finders. I've seen retailers around here dumping them for only $15.

The issue in this thread is *changing* the SSID to a personal identifier, thus making whatever is set at the factory irrelevant. Again, the SSID has nothing to do with security, it has nothing to do with the access key.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:37:33 -0800 (PST), seaweedsl wrote in :

I think that argument is a huge stretch -- I seriously doubt that any burglar is going to use SSID as an indicator of who is home or not. Not only are there easier and better means of telling if a house is empty or not, but it presumes the burglar knows there is an SSID at other times, meaning the burglar has cased the joint thoroughly enough for the SSID to be irrelevant. And my own experience is that people who turn their routers off do so when they are not using them, whether they are home or not -- I don't know of anyone who thinks to turn it off just when they are going out.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:35:35 -0600, Char Jackson wrote in :

Because that's what the article is about, leaving default settings in place.

Home burglars aren't that sophisticated. LOL

I hope not -- it's a Really Bad Idea because it contributes to network collisions and has absolutely no benefit.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:34:20 -0800 (PST), seaweedsl wrote in :

More than just that -- it also can be a real benefit to the person running the wireless network, as I explained in an earlier response to this thread.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:22:20 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote in :

Perhaps in the UK, but not here in the USA, where "Mark" can be easily looked up in a local address database. The invalid assumption you made is all too common in security, which is why it's such a serious issue.

Only if the level has real value. If the level is just obscurity then it has no real value, especially since the presumed security doesn't exist.

Bottom line, Mark, and with all due respect, you haven't made a persuasive case, and your ad hominems make your case even less persuasive. You *think* it might help, so you do it. What you need for real security is hard objective evidence that it *actually* helps. That's why WPA with a strong passphrase is worth doing, and SSID obscurity is not.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:44:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote in :

Actually:

• You posted no facts in support of your claim.

• I posted facts that prove your claim to be false.

• You don't like this, and so you attack me.

• I haven't attacked you. Have a nice day.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:52:20 GMT, Jerry Peters wrote in :

I actually depend on much more than locking my car doors -- the steering column is also locked, and it has a sophisticated alarm system that also disables the engine. It's pretty hard to steal even if left unlocked. I lock it more to protect things left in the car than the car itself.

Sure, but not relevant here, since the SSID has no bearing on the ease of the target.

Can you? I do admit it when I am wrong (as Google Groups proves) but not just to make someone else feel good.

I already explained the (admittedly weak) benefits, so tell me about contributing to network collisions. What is it about an SSID that contributes in this way?

That's pretty much what I thought when you called me lazy, arrogant, and more just a day or two ago.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:47:29 -0600, Char Jackson wrote in :

Touché. Although I didn't say "arrogant". (You've got me confused with Mark. Yikes.) I did say "lazy" because you hadn't bothered to read that relatively short article before commenting on it, but since you've now spent more time here arguing about it than it would have taken to read it, I now concede that "lazy" is probably an unfair characterization, and apologize for that.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:26:12 -0600, Char Jackson wrote in :

If you set "linksys" as the SSID, then you risk having a neighbor or passerby that's configured for that default SSID to connect or at least try to connect to your wireless accidentally. That can be especially problematic if one network is open and the other is configured for any sort of security. Every network should have a unique SSID!

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation.

I agree - I've run out of ways to explain why you're incorrect.