wpa encryption of wireless network how to?

[Bill Davidsen]

Tim wrote:
> Bill Davidsen:
>> You read different security books than I do, mine say you should make 
>> every single step as hard as possible, even if there's a workaround the 
>> intruder may not know it.
> 
> You're still missing the point completely:
> 
> IT DOES NOT, IN *ANY* WAY, MAKE IT HARDER FOR A HACKER TO HACK INTO YOUR
> WIRELESS LAN WHEN YOU STOP "BROADCASTING" THE SSID.  *THEY* DO *NOT*
> NEED YOU TO BROADCAST IT TO BE ABLE TO HACK IT.  IT GIVES YOU ZERO
> BENEFIT AND EXTRA PROBLEMS.
> 
Caps don't make you right, nor do bogus arguments. The object is to make 
it less appealing to people just looking for a hot spot to use without 
paying Starbucks, not to block serious hackers. And if they see one with 
some vendor's default SSID and one with no visible SSID, which do you 
think they use?

As far as problems (sorry, "PROBLEMS") haven't had or seen any in years, 
not sure what hidden SSID would hurt.

> Do you hear me now?  How hard is it to understood that message?  Hiding
> it does NOT give you ANY security benefits.  Not one, not even a little
> bit, not even a teensy tiny little bit.  You're deluding yourself, start
> making your tinfoil beanie, now, if you think that sort of rubbish
> helps.  
> 
You clearly don't believe that part of security is avoiding attacks. The 
reason to put ssh on a non-standard port is not because it makes it 
harder to crack, just because it gets less casual attention. Like a 
burglar choosing between the dark house with the empty garage or the one 
with lights on, cars in the driveway, and a "beware of dog" sign, 
someone looking for easy pickings takes the easy target.

If you think that discouraging wannabees isn't worth it, feel free to 
set your SSID to "Free Public Access" if you want.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot