• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hidden WiFi networks are not actually hidden in the literal sense. They still broadcast beacons that your wifi chip will see as basically “hidden network beacon lives here”. Your network connect interface just decides not to show you a list with a bunch of useless “(hidden)” entries you can’t do anything with.

    Also, when a new client wants to connect to the hidden network, the first thing it does is broadcast an unencrypted message saying “HEY, I’M LOOKING FOR [hidden network name]” so it’s completely trivial to unveil the name of hidden networks given enough time.

    • “HEY, I’M LOOKING FOR [hidden network name]”

      Client devices can also do this all the time even when not in range, which basically broadcasts they’re looking for that network everywhere they go. That’s just asking for someone to setup a rogue access point.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s why I put that term in quotes, and was specific about default networking interfaces. I didn’t go into detail because that confuses a lot of people.

      Source: working with wireless networks professionally for pretty much the last quarter century.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yea, that was a good editorial choice on your part. I did pick up on your scare quotes, I just thought it would be good to tack on the additional info “below the fold” because it’s just baffling to me that 20 years later the majority of people still think they’re hackerman when they make WiFi “hidden”.

    • Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’d be more for obfuscation than completely hiding it. As long as there are other hidden networks on the ship you just name it something generic that blends in. I mean this whole thing is a really stupid idea, but naming it something like “COM.NAB_ISO:4133” would draw less attention.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s absolutely mind-boggling that the existing WiFi infrastructure on the military ship didn’t trigger any alarms. This is the kind of thing that you can get from “pro-sumer” grade hardware/software like Ubiquiti, let alone corporate-grade or military-grade stuff. The feature is called “Rogue Access Point Detection” and it’s built into literally every WiFi solution on the market. Like, your local library is analyzing this stuff it’s that basic.

        Edit: To more directly address your point, the name shouldn’t matter at all. Rogue AP detection doesn’t give a shit about the display names of things, it looks at the actual hardware addresses and compares them to known things that are owned by your network.

        • antimongo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yup, I did some on-campus IT work while I was in college and it was super trivial to detect when people would have their own networks in the dorms

            • jmf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              At mine it was not. Hotspots and the like that stayed up for too long were flagged and action was taken to have them disabled and the student reprimanded.