Connecting to Router when SSID disabled.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas G. Marshall
  • Start date Start date
T

Thomas G. Marshall

There are a few questioins rolled into this one, but it's always confused
me.

If I disconnect my notebook from my router (802.11g), it seems that because
the SSID is turned off, and because the notebook connection goes from
"automatic" to "manual" that there is no way to reconnect to it.

UNLESS I go to the router, turn on the SSID, see it on the list from my
notebook, connect to it, and then turn off the SSID again on the router.

This seems oddly cumbersome. 3 initial questions:

1. When the SSID is not present, is there a way to turn my manual connection
to an automatic one? Clicking the following does *not* work:

(R-click) on connection icon ->
View Available Networks ->
Change Advanced Settings ->
Wireless Networks Tab ->
Click on my network name ->
Properties ->
Connection Tab->
Check "Connect when this network is in range"

2. Would turning it from manual to automatic help me anyway? If I turn on
the SSID, I can choose the network form the list and it goes "automatic" but
is it the automatic part itself that is getting in the way?

3. Why does disconnecting from a network seem to make things permanently
"Manual" ?
 
Thomas said:
There are a few questioins rolled into this one, but it's always confused
me.

If I disconnect my notebook from my router (802.11g), it seems that because
the SSID is turned off, and because the notebook connection goes from
"automatic" to "manual" that there is no way to reconnect to it.

UNLESS I go to the router, turn on the SSID, see it on the list from my
notebook, connect to it, and then turn off the SSID again on the router.

This seems oddly cumbersome. 3 initial questions:

1. When the SSID is not present, is there a way to turn my manual connection
to an automatic one? Clicking the following does *not* work:

(R-click) on connection icon ->
View Available Networks ->
Change Advanced Settings ->
Wireless Networks Tab ->
Click on my network name ->
Properties ->
Connection Tab->
Check "Connect when this network is in range"

2. Would turning it from manual to automatic help me anyway? If I turn on
the SSID, I can choose the network form the list and it goes "automatic" but
is it the automatic part itself that is getting in the way?

3. Why does disconnecting from a network seem to make things permanently
"Manual" ?
Click to expand...

Why turn off SSID broadcasts? That does nothing for security, and -- as you've
seen -- makes your network less robust.
 
Thomas said:
There are a few questioins rolled into this one, but it's always confused
me.

If I disconnect my notebook from my router (802.11g), it seems that because
the SSID is turned off, and because the notebook connection goes from
"automatic" to "manual" that there is no way to reconnect to it.

UNLESS I go to the router, turn on the SSID, see it on the list from my
notebook, connect to it, and then turn off the SSID again on the router.

This seems oddly cumbersome. 3 initial questions:

1. When the SSID is not present, is there a way to turn my manual connection
to an automatic one? Clicking the following does *not* work:

(R-click) on connection icon ->
View Available Networks ->
Change Advanced Settings ->
Wireless Networks Tab ->
Click on my network name ->
Properties ->
Connection Tab->
Check "Connect when this network is in range"

2. Would turning it from manual to automatic help me anyway? If I turn on
the SSID, I can choose the network form the list and it goes "automatic" but
is it the automatic part itself that is getting in the way?

3. Why does disconnecting from a network seem to make things permanently
"Manual" ?
Click to expand...

Disabling SSID broadcast does not provide much, if any, security, and
Microsoft recommends that you not do it:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726942.aspx

If you nevertheless want to keep SSID broadcast disabled, see:

"You cannot reconnect to a wireless network that uses a hidden SSID
after you manually disconnect from that network on a Windows XP Service
Pack 2-based computer" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907405/en-us
 
Bob Willard said something like:
Why turn off SSID broadcasts? That does nothing for security, and -- as
you've seen -- makes your network less robust.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm......I don't understand your point.

It only makes the network "less robust" if the operating system doesn't
provide a way to gain sensible access to it. Which is, by the way, only a
reason to stifle the SSID: if it makes it harder for someone who *knows* the
SSID (me), it must be much harder for others, which is the goal.

But windows disallowing this doesn't make much sense to me. My friend's
iBook (OSX) seems to have no trouble with it once you know the SSID itself,
or have connected to it previously.

As for it doing nothing for security, there are a myriad of professionals
that disagree.
http://www.google.com/search?q=security+disable+ssid

Besides, I rather like the idea that others cannot "see" my network easily.
 
Thomas G. Marshall said something like:

....[rip]...
As for it doing nothing for security, there are a myriad of
professionals that disagree.
http://www.google.com/search?q=security+disable+ssid

Besides, I rather like the idea that others cannot "see" my network
easily.
Click to expand...

I suppose there might be a myriad of others who see no bennefit to
disabling the SSID as well, so I'm certainly not accusing you of being alone
in this.

I just don't accept it. I've looked through the links Lem supplied and
don't quite follow why if I can rebuilt the wireless network entry from
scratch and connect to it, why I can't simply right-click it and choose
"make automatic", or "bring back" :) or similar.
 
Hi
If do not use any Encryption then people can sniff your traffic (whether
SSID is On or off) and get sensitive personal info.
If you use Encryption, the status of the SSID is irrelevant since anyone who
can break Encryption knows how to get on a None Broadcasting Wireless in 10
sec.

From the weakest to the strongest, Wireless security capacity is.

No Security
MAC______(Band Aid if nothing else is available).
WEP64____(Easy, to "Brake" by knowledgeable people).
WEP128___(A little Harder, but "Hackable" too).
WPA-PSK__(Very Hard to Brake ).
WPA-AES__(Not functionally Breakable)
WPA2____ (Not functionally Breakable).

Note 1: WPA-AES the current entry level rendition of WPA2.

Note 2: If you use WinXP and did not updated it you would have to download
the WPA2 patch from Microsoft. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893357

The documentation of your Wireless devices (Wireless Router, and Wireless
Computer's Card) should state the type of security that is available with
your Wireless hardware.

All devices MUST be set to the same security level using the same pass
phrase.

Therefore the security must be set according whatever is the best possible
of one of the Wireless devices.

I.e. even if most of your system might be capable to be configured to the
max. with WPA2, but one device is only capable to be configured to max . of
WEP, to whole system must be configured to WEP.

If you need more good security and one device (like a Wireless card that can
do WEP only) is holding better security for the whole Network, replace the
device with a better one.

Setting Wireless Security - http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html

The Core differences between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 -
http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html

Jack (MVP-Networking).
 
Thomas said:
Lem said something like:




Has the black-helicopter crowd yet given up the notion that we never went
and that it was a huge conspiracy?
Click to expand...

If you really want to know the truth, I could tell you ... but only if
you agree to come for a ride in my black helicopter.
 
Lem said something like:
If you really want to know the truth, I could tell you ... but only if
you agree to come for a ride in my black helicopter.
Click to expand...


Fair enough :)

By the way, I prefer to avoid wikipedia....I've given up on it's lack of
peer review model. Try www.citizendium.org, or (soon)
www.newworldencyclopedia.org in case you're similarly minded.

You might like to go more to the source for this info:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm , in case you haven't seen it yet,
but I'm betting you know your way around nasa.gov.



--
Having a dog that is a purebred does not qualify it for breeding. Dogs need
to have several generations of clearances for various illnesses before being
bred. If you are breeding dogs without taking care as to the genetic
quality
of the dog (again, being purebred is *not* enough), you are what is known as
a
"backyard breeder" and are part of the problem. Most of the congenital
problems of present day dogs are traceable directly to backyard breeding.
Spay or neuter your pet responsibly, and don't just think that you're
somehow
the exception and can breed a dog without taking the care described.
 
Thomas said:
Lem said something like:


Fair enough :)

By the way, I prefer to avoid wikipedia....I've given up on it's lack of
peer review model. Try www.citizendium.org, or (soon)
www.newworldencyclopedia.org in case you're similarly minded.

You might like to go more to the source for this info:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm , in case you haven't seen it yet,
but I'm betting you know your way around nasa.gov.
Click to expand...

Well, you're correct. The Wiki article is a little bit off. I should
have known better, and I've edited my sig accordingly. Because the word
size used in the AGC was 15 bits, translating into modern terminology
makes for ugly numbers.

The Block II AGC, which is the one that went to the moon, had 2040
15-bit words of "erasable" memory (the first 8 words were the computer's
central registers; and actually, up to address 00057 (octal) this memory
wasn't available for data, because it was used for hardware counter inputs).

Rounding off, I think I'll use "4KB of RAM."

The "fixed" or "core rope" memory (which is where all of the programming
resided), was about 36K of 15-bit words. So that translates to "72KB of
ROM."

However you count it, there was not a lot of memory. In fact, the only
way we could get it to work was by sharing (erasable) memory locations
among different applications. If I remember correctly, some memory
locations were used by as many as 7 different application programs. As
you might imagine, you had to be *very* careful about which applications
were permitted to run at the same time (and yes, the crew did screw up
on at least one occasion: on Apollo 8 the crew ran a prog they were not
supposed to run (in Fig. 3 of Parker's essay, they ran P01 *after*
liftoff ), which corrupted an important part of erasable memory;
fortunately, uplink saved the day -- can you say, "repair install"?).

The definitive reference (for me) is Hugh Blair-Smith's memo listing the
op-codes we used to program the AGC
(http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/mit_docs/1689.pdf) although the
the article you cited (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm) is a
pretty good review and is much broader in scope.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP - Networking

To the moon and back with 4KB of RAM and 72KB of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
 
Lem said something like:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
....[rip]...
By the way, I prefer to avoid wikipedia....I've given up on it's lack of
peer review model. Try www.citizendium.org, or (soon)
www.newworldencyclopedia.org in case you're similarly minded.

You might like to go more to the source for this info:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm , in case you haven't seen it
yet,
but I'm betting you know your way around nasa.gov.
Click to expand...

Well, you're correct. The Wiki article is a little bit off. I should
have known better, and I've edited my sig accordingly. Because the word
size used in the AGC was 15 bits, translating into modern terminology
makes for ugly numbers.

The Block II AGC, which is the one that went to the moon, had 2040
15-bit words of "erasable" memory (the first 8 words were the computer's
central registers; and actually, up to address 00057 (octal) this memory
wasn't available for data, because it was used for hardware counter
inputs).

Rounding off, I think I'll use "4KB of RAM."
Click to expand...

Sure, ok, but remember that the octet (8 bits) is only colloquially known as
the "byte", albeit almost always. A bit of common usage bringing it to 8,
but in CS (not modified by common usage) a byte can be of any length.

I've done work on a system where the C types {char, word, long} were all
{32, 32, 32} bits in length. It's documentation referred to the 32 byte
words as "bytes".

I refer to the early days of computing as "when things were rotten". It was
truly amazing, by present day standards, what we had to put up with, and I
first started programming ~1979 or so (high school), so I'm hardly an
old-timer.

One of the things that cracks me up is my university had one of the largest
Dec10 systems in the world, which could purportedly handle 300 terminals.
(Dunno how accurate that was). I've been trying to get someone to compare
that Decsystem 10 to my 3 GHz P4 desktop.....lol....

....[rip]...
 
Back
Top