Jonathan Moore wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Howard White <[email protected]> wrote: > > If using a hidden ESSID is making things difficult for the users, and > doesn't provide any real security why bother with using it? I know > that security is often a trade off with usability, but in this case, > it's simply making things more complicated than they need to be. The > article you reference even goes to this. I'm sure you have a reason > for this, I'm just curious as to what it might be? With that, maybe > we can find another solution to whatever problem is being solved here. > > > -jon
Thank you for those thoughts. My implication in the lead in was that hiding the ESSID had not been a complication for me, the Ubuntu user. How was I to know that Windows would get its shorts in a wad?? Should have known, maybe... Hiding the ESSID is mostly a security by obscurity technique. The Windows computers worked with this morning (a decidedly insignificant statistical sample of two!) did not "see" the hidden network. No question - the value beyond this level of security is most minimal. Next step is to make the "visitor" WAP broadcast its ESSID. What was also fun was that the two different Windows XP systems acted quite differently regarding their wireless property screens. Consistent user interface? Fat chance! Howard White --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
