nospam wrote on 12.05.2021 23:19

>> That technical problem is how to configure an Android phone such that it
>> doesn't shout out the same identifiable personal information away from home.
>
> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information' unless
> one or more of your ssids contains such information.

They work off of BSSIDs which are essentially unique and pegged to your
geolocation once they're uploaded to a public Internet database.

The BSSID is like a Social Security Number for your children.

*People who have no relationship to you other than they happened to pass*
*your home are automatically uploading essentially the equivalent of the*
*identifying common names of your children along with unique SSN of your*
*children along with the exact geolocation they were found playing outside*
*in your front yard.*

I don't know if iPhones do the same - but that's rude of Android phones.

In comp.mobile.android, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> nospam wrote on 11.05.2021 06:50
>> mac address filtering is a waste of time since mac addresses are easily
>> spoofed.

MAC addresses being easily spoofed does not make MAC address filtering a
"waste of time", just a small incremental improvement over not
filtering.

> You're infamous for making unsubstantiated statements like that but let's
> assume for once you actually know what you're talking about - shall we?
> Tell us how we can "easily spoof" a home router's AP broadcast MAC address.

I frequently find nospam's unsupported assertions irritating, but in
this case that's not the part of his assertion I'd question.

If you know the MAC address, telling your (linux/unix) device to use it
is as trivial as setting up a static IP instead of using DHCP. As for
finding AP MAC addresses, a simple "sudo iwlist $interface scan" will
get you that. Client MAC addresses? That's what Kismet is for.

This is Wardriving 101.

sudo iwlist wlp0s20f3 scanning | grep -E 'Cell .*Address|ESSID:'
Cell 01 - Address: 58:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:"Alfonso"
Cell 02 - Address: E0:CB:BC:33:[redacted]
ESSID:"Cartel de Medell\xC3\xADn"
Cell 03 - Address: EE:CB:BC:33:[redacted]
ESSID:"Noir Cartel"
Cell 04 - Address: A4:2B:8C:0A:[redacted]
ESSID:"krinky"
Cell 05 - Address: DE:CB:BC:33:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 06 - Address: 6C:AE:F6:98:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 07 - Address: 6C:AE:F6:98:[redacted]
ESSID:""
ESSID:"2c9a7c"
Cell 08 - Address: 50:6A:03:BA:[redacted]
ESSID:"NTGR_VMB_1406851534"
Cell 09 - Address: D2:40:D0:44:[redacted]
ESSID:"The Bar on [redacted]"
Cell 10 - Address: D2:40:D0:44:[redacted]
ESSID:"The Bar on [redacted]"
Cell 11 - Address: E0:CB:BC:B9:[redacted]
ESSID:"Cartel de Medell\xC3\xADn"
Cell 12 - Address: EE:CB:BC:B9:[redacted]
ESSID:"Noir Cartel"
Cell 13 - Address: DE:CB:BC:B9:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 14 - Address: 5E:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 15 - Address: 3C:37:86:3D:[redacted]
ESSID:"[redacted]"
Cell 16 - Address: B0:E4:D5:30:[redacted]
ESSID:"Nomadic Lifestyle"
Cell 17 - Address: CC:F4:11:86:[redacted]
ESSID:"Nomadic Lifestyle"
Cell 18 - Address: 46:D9:E7:FA:[redacted]
ESSID:"CloudCity-Guest"
Cell 19 - Address: 56:D9:E7:FA:[redacted]
ESSID:"CloudCity-IoT"
Cell 20 - Address: 44:D9:E7:FA:[redacted]
ESSID:"CloudCity"
Cell 21 - Address: 58:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:"Alfonso"
Cell 22 - Address: 5E:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 23 - Address: 42:2B:50:A2:[redacted]
ESSID:"\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00"
Cell 24 - Address: 58:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:"Alfonso"
Cell 25 - Address: 58:EF:68:37:[redacted]
ESSID:"Alfonso"
Cell 26 - Address: CC:40:D0:44:[redacted]
ESSID:"The Bar on [redacted]"
Cell 27 - Address: 40:2B:50:A2:[redacted]
ESSID:""
Cell 28 - Address: 46:2B:50:A2:[redacted]
ESSID:"ATT7eVq5Am"

Elijah
------
big city, big selection of networks

Eli the Bearded wrote on 11.05.2021 20:22

> This is Wardriving 101.

We are discussing different points, all of which are valid - but different.

The claim nospam made about spoofing some MAC addresses being useless may or
may not be the case depending on how much effort someone wants to expend to
connect to your home network (assuming you added MAC filtering).

However, the point of this thread has nothing to do with someone trying to
connect to our networks - or to spoofing - or to do with MAC filtering.

The point of this thread is privacy - not security.

The specific goal of this thread is to keep our network SSID, BSSID, GPS and
Signal Strength from being automatically _uploaded_ to the public databases
by every badly configured phone that happens to pass by our homes.

It's no different in principle than keeping badly configured phones from
automatically uploading photos of our kids along with their names and unique
social security numbers in addition to the GPS location of where those
photos were taken.

The _only_ way to prevent badly configured phones from uploading this unique
information (as far as anyone reputable has said) is to disable broadcast.

However once you disable broadcast, the phone is constantly asking for that
network by name so you need to also prevent the phone from doing that.

From what I gathered in the video that Vanguard recommended, many phones
typically ask for all the networks they've previously been connected to,
and, according to that presentation, on iOS you can't stop that unless you
wipe out everything you've ever connected to - where at least on Android,
according to that video, you can selectively wipe out the networks you no
longer need to connect to.

In summary the presentation Vanguard suggested claimed that almost EVERYONE
has this problem on their phone, whether or not they choose to disable the
router's broadcasting of their SSID, which, if correct, means it's even more
important the solution to this problem set for everyone.

Am 12.05.21 um 23:19 schrieb nospam:
> In article <s7h5pa$150f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> That technical problem is how to configure an Android phone such that it
>> doesn't shout out the same identifiable personal information away from home.
>
> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information' unless
> one or more of your ssids contains such information.

+1
It is an identifier like Blue, Red, Yellow or a numeration.

In article <eli$2105111344@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> >> mac address filtering is a waste of time since mac addresses are easily
> >> spoofed.
>
> MAC addresses being easily spoofed does not make MAC address filtering a
> "waste of time", just a small incremental improvement over not
> filtering.

it's a waste of time because it doesn't stop anyone intent on gaining
access from doing so. that 'small incremental improvement' might add a
few seconds to the attempt, but that's about it. it's insignificant.

what *does* stop people from accessing a network is using a complex
passphrase that isn't in any of the password dictionaries.

In article <s7hikt$qq2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> > you are broadcasting a signal into public airspace. anyone can legally
> > detect its presence and do whatever they want with that information.
>
> Android (at least) but I'm not sure about how iPhones do it) is at least
> configured to respect the "sign" you have outside your AP saying essentially
> *"It's rude to take snapshots of my Wi-Fi & to then upload their unique*
> *names & GPS location to the net*" (just because you happened to drive by my
> house when the APs were playing).

_nomap is done serverside and there's nothing you can do on other
people's phones to stop it. the signal is in public space.

> > what's not legal is cracking the passcode to gain access without
> > authorization, which isn't what any of the databases are doing.
>
> And yet even you have enough intelligence to comprehend those public
> databases facilitate doing exactly what you say they're not doing.
>
> If your SSID is sufficiently rare (or even unique) that rare/unique
> information is then more easily found and hence more easily automatically
> added to butterfly hash tables whose exitence - in and of itself -
> facilitates that illegal cracking into your network you speak of.

nonsense.

> >> As far as anyone has ever stated in this thread, the easiest (and most
> >> effective) way to stay out of all those databases is to hide the SSID.
> >
> > that does absolutely nothing and anyone who said it would is wrong.
>
> Maybe that's what happens with iPhones but it doesn't happen on Android.

it has nothing to do with android or ios.

your wifi basestation broadcasts a signal into public space, hidden
ssid or not, and *any* device can pick it up.

In article <s7hivj$v06$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> >> That technical problem is how to configure an Android phone such that it
> >> doesn't shout out the same identifiable personal information away from
> >> home.
> >
> > broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information' unless
> > one or more of your ssids contains such information.
>
> They work off of BSSIDs which are essentially unique and pegged to your
> geolocation once they're uploaded to a public Internet database.
>
> The BSSID is like a Social Security Number for your children.

nonsense.

the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information and
is not in any way like a social security number.

Joerg Lorenz wrote on 13.05.2021 10:30

> It is an identifier like Blue, Red, Yellow or a numeration.

What's consistent is that the fools like nospam & Joerg always agree.
And yet they always disagree with the published experts in the field.

Clearly nospam and Joerg Lorenz are blissfully ignorant of what the Rhodes
Scholar pen tester Glenn Wilkinson said about Wi-Fi identification (which is
going on everywhere as he tested it around the world) in that hour long
video which VanguardLH had kindly referenced (and which I watched).

Black Hat "The Machines That Betrayed Their Masters by Glenn Wilkinson"
https://youtu.be/GvrB6S_O0BE?t=130

He pretty much identified a few dozen people by their WiFi activity only.

And that was way back in 2014 (and he has a shoestring budget using FOSS).
Can you imagine how much more Wi-Fi tracking there is now?
Or from well funded dragnet systems (which he discusses massively exist).

What Glenn Wilkinson suggested is to do EXACTLY what we're doing here!
He even said _all_ smartphone owners need do to exactly what we're doing.
--
Of course Joerg Lorenz knows more than that silly Rhodes Scholar does.

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 15:24

> what *does* stop people from accessing a network is using a complex
> passphrase that isn't in any of the password dictionaries.

In case people are trying to learn something from what nospam says he needs
to add that the SSID should _also_ not be something that is common either.

Because the SSID is the salt for the WPA2-PSK encryption algorithm most of
us are likely using on a typical home router, the SSID should be unique.

Google "rainbow butterfly hash table" before you dispute that suggestion.
https://epicsearch.in/search?pno=1&q=rainbow+table+butterfly+hash+table

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 15:24

> _nomap is done serverside and there's nothing you can do on other
> people's phones to stop it. the signal is in public space.

When he's caught bullshitting nospam then always drops into stating what
everyone knows & what everyone already knew before this thread was started.

*The whole point of this thread is that the SSID "_nomap" is too late.*

Preventing that upload is the entire focus of this thread _because_ the
"_nomap" is not done on the phone but on the public server people upload to.

The _only_ known way to prevent that upload on typical phones (ie those not
specifically configured to be wardrivers) is to disable AP SSID broadcast.

But your own phone still shouts out that hidden SSID everywhere it goes.
Which is why it matters to be able to auto turn that off away from home.

paul <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 15:24
>
> > _nomap is done serverside and there's nothing you can do on other
> > people's phones to stop it. the signal is in public space.
>
> When he's caught bullshitting nospam then always drops into stating what
> everyone knows & what everyone already knew before this thread was started.
>
> *The whole point of this thread is that the SSID "_nomap" is too late.*
>
> Preventing that upload is the entire focus of this thread _because_ the
> "_nomap" is not done on the phone but on the public server people upload to.
>
> The _only_ known way to prevent that upload on typical phones (ie those not
> specifically configured to be wardrivers) is to disable AP SSID broadcast.
>
> But your own phone still shouts out that hidden SSID everywhere it goes.
> Which is why it matters to be able to auto turn that off away from home.

Isn't that what 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' does/can_do?

AFAIK, 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' is a Samsung feature, but I assume that
other modern smartphones have a similar feature.

Samsung's 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' has a 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'
switch (on/off) which says:

"Turn on Wi-Fi automatically when you're in
places you use it frequently and turn it off
elsewhere."

When tapped, the setting lists the names/SSIDs of your frequently used
APs. They also have a 'pin', which when tapped show the location of the
AP on the map. (I don't know what is shown - if anything - if a SSID is
hidden.)

I assume that when not close to these APs, Wi-Fi is indeed turned off
and hence does *not* broadcasts your hidden SSID.

(Of course there's still Wi-Fi activity even if Wi-Fi is turned off,
but AFAIK, that's only listening, not broadcasting.)

Frank Slootweg wrote on 13.05.2021 17:35

> Isn't that what 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' does/can_do?

Thank you for that suggestion of Samsung Inteligent Wi-Fi.
My phone is a Samsung on Android 11 so I will test out your suggestion.

Here's the first hit but it must be for an older Android version
because the menu selections are slightly different from mine.
https://r2.community.samsung.com/t5/Others/Samsung-Intelligent-Wi-Fi/td-p/2471560
Open the settings menu and go to connections
Select Wi-Fi
Tap on the Advanced link on the top right corner of the screen
Make sure the toggle next to Smart Network Switch/Adaptive Wi-Fi is set ON

Bear in mind I don't have my Samsung Android 11 phone set up with either
a Google or Samsung account and I keep Location turned off by default
and the Location "Improve accuracy" settings are all set to off
(ie both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth scanning are turned off) and each of my
Wi-Fi saved SSIDs are all set to _not_ "Auto reconnect" by default.

My Android 11 selections are slightly different but similar.
Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi > 3dots > Advanced > Intelligent Wi-Fi

In that Samsung "Intelligent Wi-Fi" section are four subsections.
*Switch to mobile data* = yes/no
(Use mobile data whenever your Wi-Fi Internet connection
is slow or unstable)
*Detect suspicious networks* = yes/no
(Get notified when suspicious activity is detected
on the current Wi-Fi network)
*Show network quality info* = yes/no
(Show network quality info in the list of available Wi-Fi networks.)

And...

*Turn on Wi-Fi automatically* = yes/no [which is grayed out]
(Turn on Location to use this feature).
But when I turned on Location the information above changed to:
Turn on Wi-Fi automatically = yes/no [but it was still grayed out]
(Turn on Wi-Fi scanning in Settings > Location >
Improve accuracy to use this feature)

Heading on over to "Settings > Location > Improve accuracy" I am
presented with two choices (both of which were initially off).

Wi-Fi scanning
(Let apps use Wi-Fi for more accurate location detection,
even when Wi-Fi is off.)
Bluetooth scanning
(Let apps use Bluetooth for more accurate location detection,
even when Bluetooth is off.)

After turning on only Wi-Fi scanning I headed back to Intelligent Wi-Fi.
Finally the "Tun on Wi-Fi automatically" option was no longer grayed out.

So now it's on (at the cost of Wi-Fi scanning also being turned on).

>
> AFAIK, 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' is a Samsung feature, but I assume that
> other modern smartphones have a similar feature.
>
> Samsung's 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' has a 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'
> switch (on/off) which says:
>
> "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically when you're in
> places you use it frequently and turn it off
> elsewhere."
>
> When tapped, the setting lists the names/SSIDs of your frequently used
> APs. They also have a 'pin', which when tapped show the location of the
> AP on the map. (I don't know what is shown - if anything - if a SSID is
> hidden.)

Subsequent to changing the settings as shown above, when I revisited the
Advanced connections settings and tapped on "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically",
it brought me to an almost empty page which didn't let _any_ Wi-Fi SSIDs.

Maybe it needs either a reboot or some time to work?
Or maybe it needs to figure out the location of the Wi-Fi SSID's first?
(All of my saved SSIDs are in the same location.)
(And of my saved SSIDs are set to _not_ "Auto reconnect" by default.)

>
> I assume that when not close to these APs, Wi-Fi is indeed turned off
> and hence does *not* broadcasts your hidden SSID.
>
> (Of course there's still Wi-Fi activity even if Wi-Fi is turned off,
> but AFAIK, that's only listening, not broadcasting.)

This is a decent general purpose albeit Samsung solution if it works.

There doesn't seem to be a way to manually specify _where_ the SSID
is located (in terms of GPS coordinates) so maybe that has to be learned?

The drawback is it apparently uses GPS which itself is a can of worms.
It also requires background Wi-Fi scanning which also is a can of worms.
It may require "autoconnect" to be turned on (although it didn't say so).

I'll test it for now to see how it works but in the end as I do think
it's a nice general purpose solution for most people on Samsung phones.

But I'm working toward a solution which works off the cellular tower
for the obvious reason that the cellular connection is already turned on
whereas the GPS is off 99.95% of the time (as well it should be).
--
Note this is only a two minute test so far so stay tuned for developments.

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 15:24

>> The BSSID is like a Social Security Number for your children.
>
> nonsense.
>
> the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information and
> is not in any way like a social security number.

Listen to Vanguard's video which says the exact opposite of what you claim.

paul <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 13.05.2021 17:35
>
> > Isn't that what 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' does/can_do?
>
> Thank you for that suggestion of Samsung Inteligent Wi-Fi.
> My phone is a Samsung on Android 11 so I will test out your suggestion.
>
> Here's the first hit but it must be for an older Android version
> because the menu selections are slightly different from mine.
> https://r2.community.samsung.com/t5/Others/Samsung-Intelligent-Wi-Fi/td-p/2471560
> Open the settings menu and go to connections
> Select Wi-Fi
> Tap on the Advanced link on the top right corner of the screen
> Make sure the toggle next to Smart Network Switch/Adaptive Wi-Fi is set ON
>
> Bear in mind I don't have my Samsung Android 11 phone set up with either
> a Google or Samsung account and I keep Location turned off by default
> and the Location "Improve accuracy" settings are all set to off
> (ie both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth scanning are turned off) and each of my
> Wi-Fi saved SSIDs are all set to _not_ "Auto reconnect" by default.
>
> My Android 11 selections are slightly different but similar.
> Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi > 3dots > Advanced > Intelligent Wi-Fi
>
> In that Samsung "Intelligent Wi-Fi" section are four subsections.
> *Switch to mobile data* = yes/no
> (Use mobile data whenever your Wi-Fi Internet connection
> is slow or unstable)
> *Detect suspicious networks* = yes/no
> (Get notified when suspicious activity is detected
> on the current Wi-Fi network)
> *Show network quality info* = yes/no
> (Show network quality info in the list of available Wi-Fi networks.)
>
> And...
>
> *Turn on Wi-Fi automatically* = yes/no [which is grayed out]
> (Turn on Location to use this feature).
> But when I turned on Location the information above changed to:
> Turn on Wi-Fi automatically = yes/no [but it was still grayed out]
> (Turn on Wi-Fi scanning in Settings > Location >
> Improve accuracy to use this feature)
>
> Heading on over to "Settings > Location > Improve accuracy" I am
> presented with two choices (both of which were initially off).
>
> Wi-Fi scanning
> (Let apps use Wi-Fi for more accurate location detection,
> even when Wi-Fi is off.)
> Bluetooth scanning
> (Let apps use Bluetooth for more accurate location detection,
> even when Bluetooth is off.)
>
> After turning on only Wi-Fi scanning I headed back to Intelligent Wi-Fi.
> Finally the "Tun on Wi-Fi automatically" option was no longer grayed out.
>
> So now it's on (at the cost of Wi-Fi scanning also being turned on).
>
> > AFAIK, 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' is a Samsung feature, but I assume that
> > other modern smartphones have a similar feature.
> >
> > Samsung's 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' has a 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'
> > switch (on/off) which says:
> >
> > "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically when you're in
> > places you use it frequently and turn it off
> > elsewhere."
> >
> > When tapped, the setting lists the names/SSIDs of your frequently used
> > APs. They also have a 'pin', which when tapped show the location of the
> > AP on the map. (I don't know what is shown - if anything - if a SSID is
> > hidden.)
>
> Subsequent to changing the settings as shown above, when I revisited the
> Advanced connections settings and tapped on "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically",
> it brought me to an almost empty page which didn't let _any_ Wi-Fi SSIDs.
>
> Maybe it needs either a reboot or some time to work?

AFAIK, it needs to 'learn' which SSID(s) you use frequently. I.e.
after turning it on, it doesn't know anything yet, it still has to
'learn'.

> Or maybe it needs to figure out the location of the Wi-Fi SSID's first?
> (All of my saved SSIDs are in the same location.)
> (And of my saved SSIDs are set to _not_ "Auto reconnect" by default.)
>
> > I assume that when not close to these APs, Wi-Fi is indeed turned off
> > and hence does *not* broadcasts your hidden SSID.
> >
> > (Of course there's still Wi-Fi activity even if Wi-Fi is turned off,
> > but AFAIK, that's only listening, not broadcasting.)
>
> This is a decent general purpose albeit Samsung solution if it works.

As I mentioned, I think other brands have similar facilities and
AFAIK there are apps which do this kind of stuff.

> There doesn't seem to be a way to manually specify _where_ the SSID
> is located (in terms of GPS coordinates) so maybe that has to be learned?

Exactly. See above.

> The drawback is it apparently uses GPS which itself is a can of worms.

No, it uses *Location* (services), which *may* use GPS, but can also
use other sources of location information, without using GPS. My phone
doesn't use GPS, unless I use a navigation app (like (Google) Maps or
OsmAnd). If GPS is on, there's a GPS icon (upside down teardrop) in the
Notification Area.

> It also requires background Wi-Fi scanning which also is a can of worms.

FWIW, on my phone (Samsung Galaxy A51) 'Wi-Fi scanning' is *off*, but
'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' is on. I don't think I have changed the
'Wi-Fi scanning' setting at any time. so I don't know why you have to
turn 'Wi-Fi scanning' on, in order to be able to turn on 'Turn on Wi-Fi
automatically'. Perhaps you should turn 'Wi-Fi scanning' back off and
see what happens to the 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' setting.

> It may require "autoconnect" to be turned on (although it didn't say so).
>
> I'll test it for now to see how it works but in the end as I do think
> it's a nice general purpose solution for most people on Samsung phones.
>
> But I'm working toward a solution which works off the cellular tower
> for the obvious reason that the cellular connection is already turned on
> whereas the GPS is off 99.95% of the time (as well it should be).

As mentioned above, GPS is off, unless some app turns it on, so the
'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' feature should work with GPS off (and
'Location' on).

> --
> Note this is only a two minute test so far so stay tuned for developments.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 13.05.2021 20:43

> AFAIK, it needs to 'learn' which SSID(s) you use frequently. I.e.
> after turning it on, it doesn't know anything yet, it still has to
> 'learn'.

Thank you for the clarification, with which I would tend to agree. It very
likely needs to learn which SSIDs we use most frequently and where they're
located (given I didn't see a manual setting for either value).

>> This is a decent general purpose albeit Samsung solution if it works.
>
> As I mentioned, I think other brands have similar facilities and
> AFAIK there are apps which do this kind of stuff.

Thank you for letting us know other brands have similar features as all
questions here should have general purpose solutions if possible.

The apps which geofence based on GPS radios are less useful in my opinion
than those which geofence based on cellular towers (or some other metric)
simply because GPS is off 99.95% of the time but the cellular radio is on
99.95% of the time.

>> The drawback is it apparently uses GPS which itself is a can of worms.
>
> No, it uses *Location* (services), which *may* use GPS, but can also
> use other sources of location information, without using GPS. My phone
> doesn't use GPS, unless I use a navigation app (like (Google) Maps or
> OsmAnd). If GPS is on, there's a GPS icon (upside down teardrop) in the
> Notification Area.

My Samsung "Intelligent Wi-Fi" is grayed out unless I turn on both the
teardrop tile "Location" & the "Improve Accuracy" background "Wi-Fi
scanning" yes/no slider switch.

I just tested all the permutations & combinations with either turned off and
what happens is that "Intelligent Wi-Fi" "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" grays
out whenever _either_ is turned off (or both turned off).

The funny thing regarding your statement that Location may not necessarily
mean "GPS" is that the "Location" forms don't explicitly say the GPS radio
is what the Location teardrop tile turns on but there is no _other_ way to
explicitly turn on the GPS radios that I can find - so that teardrop tile
Location icon _must_ be turning on the GPS receivers.

What else can that "teardrop" tile switch be doing but turning on GPS?

>
>> It also requires background Wi-Fi scanning which also is a can of worms.
>
> FWIW, on my phone (Samsung Galaxy A51) 'Wi-Fi scanning' is *off*, but
> 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' is on. I don't think I have changed the
> 'Wi-Fi scanning' setting at any time. so I don't know why you have to
> turn 'Wi-Fi scanning' on, in order to be able to turn on 'Turn on Wi-Fi
> automatically'. Perhaps you should turn 'Wi-Fi scanning' back off and
> see what happens to the 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' setting.

Mine is the A32 (I just got a handful of them for free from T-Mobile in
addition to iPhones which were essentially offered at half price).

The funny thing is that if I start with everything blue & turned on
Location = blue and set to on
Wi-Fi scanning = blue and set to on
Turn on Wi-Fi automatically = blue and set to on

And then if I turn off either "Location" or "Wi-Fi scanning", then what
happens is the "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" remains in the on position
but it grays out.

What does that indicate?
Is it really on but just not changable to off?
Or is it off?

I interpreted that to mean it is off.

> As mentioned above, GPS is off, unless some app turns it on, so the
> 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically' feature should work with GPS off (and
> 'Location' on).

With "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" blue and set to on, the instant I turn
off the Location teardrop or I turn off Wi-Fi scanning the
"Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" stays in the on position but it grays out.

I'm confused for a few reasons, one of which is that I'm not sure what a
grayed out indication means when the switch position remains at "on"
and another of which is that if the teardrop pulldown "Location" tile
doesn't turn on the GPS receiver - what does it do and how do you turn on
the GPS receiver then?

In article <s7jenp$1fjp$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
> > what *does* stop people from accessing a network is using a complex
> > passphrase that isn't in any of the password dictionaries.
>
> In case people are trying to learn something from what nospam says he needs
> to add that the SSID should _also_ not be something that is common either.

a unique ssid doesn't make much of a difference.

> Because the SSID is the salt for the WPA2-PSK encryption algorithm most of
> us are likely using on a typical home router, the SSID should be unique.
>
> Google "rainbow butterfly hash table" before you dispute that suggestion.
> https://epicsearch.in/search?pno=1&q=rainbow+table+butterfly+hash+table

learn about cracking wifi first.

In article <s7jf54$1mfa$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
> Preventing that upload is the entire focus of this thread _because_ the
> "_nomap" is not done on the phone but on the public server people upload to.

the only way to prevent being included in a wifi database is by turning
off your wifi base station or converting your house into a faraday cage
so that there's zero leakage outside, which has the drawback of no
windows.

> The _only_ known way to prevent that upload on typical phones (ie those not
> specifically configured to be wardrivers) is to disable AP SSID broadcast.

nope. that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

> But your own phone still shouts out that hidden SSID everywhere it goes.

yes it does.

> Which is why it matters to be able to auto turn that off away from home.

turn off the phone's wifi, or better yet, leave the phone at home.

while you're out, tin foil is in aisle 6, halfway down on the left.

In article <s7job2$jum$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
> >> The BSSID is like a Social Security Number for your children.
> >
> > nonsense.
> >
> > the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information and
> > is not in any way like a social security number.
>
> Listen to Vanguard's video which says the exact opposite of what you claim.

it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.

you understand even less than he does, which is quite the
accomplishment, and not a good one.

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 23:08

> while you're out, tin foil is in aisle 6, halfway down on the left.

True to form you turned into a babbling idiot when confronted with facts.

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 22:08

> it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.

Tell us.
What did the Rhodes Scholar security professional warn about in that video?

It's easy to tell you're a bumbling idiot nospam because you have no adult
response to any fact you happen not to like - and as such you are no
different than similar morons like Joerg Lorenz & Alan Baker & Lewis & JR.

You didn't even watch the video.

nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 22:08

> a unique ssid doesn't make much of a difference.

You clearly don't understand how those published hash tables are generated.

> learn about cracking wifi first.

As always nospam turned into a bumbling idiot when confronted with fact.

Nospam,

The below is *everything* you responded with in all four posts in this
thread :

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[Wed, 12 May 2021 10:35:28]

> yep

> the last four words should be removed for a more accurate statement.

[Wed, 12 May 2021 17:19:25]

> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.

[ Thu, 13 May 2021 09:24:17]

> nonsense.
>
> the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information
> and is not in any way like a social security number.

You might notice that the above quote is just a repeat of the statement you
made a day before to the same person, with nothing (new) added. Which
makes it a NULL post.

[Thu, 13 May 2021 16:08:18]

> it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.

> you understand even less than he does, which is quite the
> accomplishment, and not a good one.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

You are up to your old tricks : claiming a lot, but explaining / supporting
none of it. And oh yeah, lets not forget your habit of "misunderstanding"
what someone has said.

Personally I think this one is a hoot :

> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.

In that case you will have no problem with posting the SSNs of yourself and
all your family members here.

I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers, right
?

And before you think of replying how a SSN *can be used as* a key into some
big, PII containing list somewhere, how/why do you think that that is
impossible for any other number ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Joerg,

>> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
>> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.
>
> +1
> It is an identifier like Blue, Red, Yellow or a numeration.

Do you have a SSN yourself ? How is that /not/ an identifier ?

And even though its just an identifier, the American gouverment strongly
suggests you to keep it to yourself. Do you have any idea why ?

IOW : put your brain into gear before you put your mouth into motion.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <s7k3bl$j4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> True to form I turned into a babbling idiot when confronted with facts.

ftfy

In article <s7k3l2$4pc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> > it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.
>
> Tell us.
> What did the Rhodes Scholar security professional warn about in that video?

as usual, you snipped to alter context.

the video did *not* say that a bssid is like an ssn.

> In article <s7job2$jum$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > >> The BSSID is like a Social Security Number for your children.
> > >
> > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information and
> > > is not in any way like a social security number.
> >
> > Listen to Vanguard's video which says the exact opposite of what you claim.
>
> it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.
>
> you understand even less than he does, which is quite the
> accomplishment, and not a good one.