Hide and give complex name to SSID instead of using encryption key

I'm in a quiet and not too crowded street, I'm pretty sure there aren't too many hackers around... and I'm on third (top) floor too.
If I want to get the best possible wireless-n speed on my network, but still make sure no-one but a serious hacker could penetrate it, what do you think about just setting SSID to not broadcast (and giving it a complex name)?

...and I just check what's connected at regular periods. Or, I could even restrict access to only the MAC addresses of my devices.

What do you think about that idea? I'm liking the idea very much. Secure enough?

 

I use the MAC address filter on my network at home and I've never had an issue.

 

the only problem w/ mac filtering is in friends coming to visit or play on lan if you want to stay secured you need to allow them access and then block their macs again

 

Yeah, just in case they snoop around the next day without me noticing!
Cool then, I think I'll use mac filtering as my main security method. thanks bro.

 

Please don't abandon encryption - you'll be wide open. Hiding the network name is useless against a hacker with Air Magnet or similar. Living on the third floor is simply irrelevant, unless you think the signal can't make the trip down to ground level, but I promise you it can. MAC table? Forget it. Once a hacker has found an unencrypted network he will grab your MAC out of the air, and his (specially purchased) wireless card will spoof it with a simple Linux command. Never underestimate how committed hackers are, they will go to any expense, any time, any trouble, all to put one over on you. Please don't make it easy for them.

 

Well what form of encryption isn't hacked yet? Is WPA2 the only one left?

But I see what you mean, I can picture a hacker, searching for hidden networks, and suddenly he finds one and goes "oh, yummy. un-encrypted." sure.

but think about it. How common is it, really, for people in their homes to have hidden networks? Most people aren't techy enough to even know how to deal with that. So - what are the chances a very committed and desparate hacker's going to come in my quiet street, looking for a hidden network, which is unlikely to be un-encrypted and mac-controlled anyway! What I'm looking to do, is very rare by the sounds of things. Very rare in the real world with all the normal people out their with their simple WEP and WPA networks who don't know a thing.

And surely there's intrusion detection software for this? I could just employ that on my network.

 

Well now, I really don't know what the chances are of you being hacked; crime does happen to people who live in quiet streets. In all security matters it does not pay to assume that there is no threat or that the threat will only come from dummies. You simply cannot know if there is a hacker in your area. It does seem to me that hacking is quite a big interest, and I judge that by the number of dedicated websites and forums, and the profusion of software. Still, you are probably right, and nothing will happen to you, but why take the chance?

I would agree that a hidden network gives you protection against a casual local WLAN user, although I fail to see the benefit of a complex SSID. At the moment our only proven protection is WPA2 with a long password. You know it makes sense.

 

Well the fact that I used to use only WEP for a long time shouldn't make me complacent, but I really do wonder when they'll have to come out with WPA3 or something.

Well I think I will risk it and use instrusion detections software, and see how I go. thanks for making me more aware of the risks involved.

 

WPA TKIP is only hackable, subjected to brute force attack only if you used a dictionary word 8 chr or less. As with any security it's only has good as the password. WPA AES with 20chr of all printable chr will take over 24 yrs at 100k/sec. Since it randomly changes on a time base, it's not gong to happen.
WPA2 is better, but you still need to use a strong password.

The price you will pay when the police or feds come knocking on your door and hauling you to jail for illegal downloads (music or movies). It's not worth the risk, unless you just like paying lawyers.

 

What's that supposed to mean? lol...

 

I think the guy means that if someone piggybacks on your wireless to download illegal stuff then the session IP address assigned to you by your ISP could lead law enforcement to your door. That would me a major inconvenience at the very least.

 

Oh yeah. I suppose that's a motive of people like that.

Again, I wonder what the chances of someone specifically coming outside my apartment building in order to do such illegal activity on a connection like mine really are, and then, the chances that I will not detect and block them for a substantial enough period of time to be able to picked up by law enforcement agencies (even if for a few hours while I'm sleeping), and then the chance that they are then pursued by those law enforcement agencies. Quite low IMHO. And I'm on an unlimited connection so someone managing to get through wouldn't cause me ISP usage limit troubles. And lastly it would take a while for them to bruteforce into my LAN shares.

But, yes, it is a risk, however small the chances may be.

 

It's easy enough to set up a WLAN password (WPA/WPA2, not WEP) to eliminate this risk.

 

Hiding the SSD does NOTHING for safety. You need encryption.

What is it with people wanting to use the "easier" option and still think they're safe? Encrypting isn't that hard!

 

No.
The whole reason why I wanted to try not using encryption was to get more speed on my wireless-n.

But I read earlier today that the reduction in speed usually ranges from 5% to 30%, and the better the processor in the router, the less reduction in speed. I'm looking at getting the DIR-855 so, I will test for a short bit but I don't think it'll be such an issue.

Ah, back to encryption. If just felt wrong without it anyway.