# Remember Wi-Fi?



## screwtape (Aug 16, 2010)

Hi there...

I just have a quick question. I've searched around the boards here and haven't come up with anything.

I have the K3 wi-fi and am wondering if it is supposed to "remember" the last network that it was connected to. Seems that I have to type in my network settings almost every time I return from a lengthy sleep state.

Tis is particularly irritating because my wi-Fi network is "off the grid" so-to-speak and does not broadcast it's SSID. It also only allows devices with the specific MAC addresses that I have input (kindle is one of them) and assigns the given device a static IP address. 

So almost every time I want to connect to my wi-fi I have to put all of this information in: SSID, STATIC IP ADDRESS, SUBNET MASK, ROUTER IP ADDRESS,  DNS and WPA PASSWORD. Ack!

It's not a HUGE problem because I don't do anything that requires that I be connected every minute. But when I want to sync or download a book... Well, you know.

Thanks for reading!


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I have never had my Kindle ask me to re-enter my network settings. Have you tried restarting it?


----------



## screwtape (Aug 16, 2010)

Yeah. It asks me then too.


----------



## hidden_user (Dec 20, 2010)

I haven't had this problem but the first thing that comes to mind is, are you in a multiple Wi-Fi environment and perhaps there is a stronger or as strong signal from another Wi-Fi source? I don't know if that would even have anything to with the problem but it just popped in my head as a thought.

Also have you tried putting the network back "on the grid" with auto ip and dns, for a period of time necessary to troubleshoot?

I don't know, it just seems it COULD be a network interface issue rather than a Kindle problem :dunno:

Got a friend or family member with another Kindle, experiencing the same problem? Are other network devices working fine on your currently configured network?

Honestly, I'm a newb to Wi-Fi and only have questions myself.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

My best guess is that your Kindle would try to attach to the last access point but if there's no matching SSID being broadcast it would pop up a list of available connections.


----------



## Phil75070 (Dec 30, 2009)

Why _*aren't*_ you broadcasting the SSID? NOT broadcasting the SSID and using MAC address filtering just give a false sense of security. Also, any particular reason the Kindle needs to have a static IP?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/the-six-dumbest-ways-to-secure-a-wireless-lan/43


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

We don't broadcast our SSID. . . . .when I first connected my K3, of course it didn't 'find' our network -- though it showed some of the neighbors' ones.  I went to the set up and entered our SSID and password. . . .that was that.  At home whenever I turn on wireless it finds -- and connects to -- our network without any problem. . .


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Hmm. Well, in view of Ann's comment above, I'll revise my guess to the fixed IP requirement.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Hmm. Well, in view of Ann's comment above, I'll revise my guess to the fixed IP requirement.


That's what I'd guess. . .but in my case it would really be a guess because I really don't know anything about such stuff. . . .I expect your 'guess' is more informed.


----------



## waynep (Dec 22, 2009)

SSID, MAC filtering and the like are all security practices that don't provide any real security. They simply make the network user un-friendly. 

The best real security these days is simply turning on WPA2 and using a real strong password. The best would be 64 characters of random digits, but that would be impossible to remember, or you would have to cut/paste it from somewhere. Just choose a pass phrase and sub in some numbers etc. One of my old passwords that I no longer use is "W1ndo0wssuck5". It's not very hard to remember and is very hard to guess. WPA2 will keep other from seeing your network traffic or joining your network. If a friend comes over, you can give them the password. If you are really paranoid about giving out a WPA2 password, then you can stack another router on the first one, forming a visitor network and change that password occasionally. 

The only security I am using is WPA2. I would suggest un-complicating your network and making things easier.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

waynep said:


> SSID, MAC filtering and the like are all security practices that don't provide any real security.


Exactly.

Turn SSID broadcasting back on, get rid of MAC filtering, turn DHCP back on. All of these are a very dull knife in a full-auto gun fight as far as security goes.

This should take care of the problem, as well as make your network much easier to manage.


----------



## screwtape (Aug 16, 2010)

Thanks for all the comments! 

I have to say that after restoring the K3 to the factory settings and then connecting to my network using the hidden SSID, WPA2 password and static IP now is automatic. I dunno. I guess there may have been a 0 or a 1 out of place.

I've had no problems with any other devices (including a K2 under the same setup) at all since I set the network up quite some time ago (years). Just a screwy thing with the Kindle but it's now fixed.

The comments on the "false sense of security" brought about by not broadcasting the SSID and using a non-standard IP scheme are interesting, however. Does locking one's car doors provide the same "false" sense based on the idea that someone could just break the windows to get inside?

I look at it as being proactive and doing my part to be protective of my data. I'm not the Pentagon but too many people leave their networks wide open and then wonder how someone was able to get into their computer and grab data.

Admittedly any hacker who wants to get into my network is going to eventually do so no matter how much security I place on it. But I fail to see how being proactive and at least adding some level of security should provide one with a "false sense of security". My sense that my network is secure is heightened, just as my thoughts are that my car is SAFER if I lock it but, again, I'm aware that nothing is 100% (aside from disconnecting completely).

Why does anybody need to see/know my SSID but me? That blocks a large pool of people from stepping right up to eat up my bandwidth. If I stay away from the standard 192.168... IP scheme (or the 10.0.0... one), that provides another level of protection from those looking to gain access to the router itself. It's not "false" security. It's just wise, in my opinion. And there must be a reason that every router on the planet provides users with the choice of whether or not to broadcast an SSID.

Happy holidays!


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

As far as the 'false sense of security' thing is concerned, I think this idea came about because in the early days of wireless networks you often only had WEP security to play with. This was about as robust as a wet paper bag (as Marvin said, "I hate wet paper bags  ") and so we all used hidden SSID's and MAC blocking to make the network more secure.

WPA2 is hugely more secure than WEP, but I know I (like a lot of people) didn't bother moving to WPA2 for a long time, partly because not all kit supported it, and partly because I wanted to believe that WEP plus hidden SSID plus MAC blocking was enough.

I finally read enough to realise it wasn't enough, and so I got a new router and I went to WPA2. I did use a hidden SSID for a while, but then I gave up because I found that some of the various "non-PC" devices that I wanted to connect didn't like it.

So, if you understand this, and use hidden SSID and MAC blocking IN ADDITION TO WPA2 then there's no problem, but you have to accept that it does make a multi-device Wifi network harder to setup. If you are still using hidden SSID and MAC blocking with WEP, then that's the 'false sense of security' and I would strongly recommend you change it.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

screwtape said:


> The comments on the "false sense of security" brought about by not broadcasting the SSID and using a non-standard IP scheme are interesting, however. Does locking one's car doors provide the same "false" sense based on the idea that someone could just break the windows to get inside?


A more accurate analogy is thinking you have increased the security of your car merely by shutting the unlocked driver's door rather than leaving it open.

It makes no difference whatsoever.


----------



## waynep (Dec 22, 2009)

screwtape said:


> Thanks for all the comments!
> 
> I have to say that after restoring the K3 to the factory settings and then connecting to my network using the hidden SSID, WPA2 password and static IP now is automatic. I dunno. I guess there may have been a 0 or a 1 out of place.
> 
> ...


Hiding the SSID and changing the IP address range is not real security. It's "security by obscurity". Your network is still open and sniffers can "see" your data. There are tools that are easily accessible on the Internet to find open networks, break WEP security etc. It does not matter what the IP's are, these tools will find your network, and it's ridiculously easy. Anyone can do it. SSID hiding and changing IP ranges keep the people away from your network that are not very network knowledgeable. NetStumbler is one of the tools available that will find wireless networks even with no SSID broadcast and the IP's changed to no-standard.

The SSID is not some piece of data that's important. I broadcast my SSID and I don't care who knows it. That alone does not give them anything nor does it allow them to access my network with WPA2 enabled.

The best way to protect yourself and your data from the wireless vulnerability is with WPA2. It encrypts the data between your computers and the router. Sniffers cannot decrypt that data without the WPA2 key. With WPA2 being used, your are really secure. It's not a false sense of security. It works. The WPA2 key (password) is the important piece of data that you don't want to let out. The only way to decrypt the data without the key is with massive amounts of computer time which does not include PC's.

I have done the following to secure my wireless network:

1) set the SSID to something personal. Mine is called pwlan. The only thing this accomplishes is getting it names something other than the default like "linksys". Do you know how many people have wireless networks called "linksys"?

2) Enabled WPA2.

That's all. It's secure and easy to use. No SSID hiding, No MAC filtering, no non-standard IP ranges, nothing else.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't think it's productive to get into a discussion about what sort of security is or is not reliable. . .there are probably nearly as many opinions on that as we have members!   I'd even go so far as to say that 'one size does not fit all' so what is satisfactory for one might be not enough or too much for someone else.  Bottom line: If you're comfortable with the level of security on your home network, that's all that's really necessary.

But, for those having trouble connecting -- it does help for folks here to know how you have the network configured in order to help you  get sorted out.


----------

