Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.4.196]:34062 "EHLO
	mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753953AbYDSMjq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:39:46 -0400
Received: from X61.NetworkingUnlimited.com
 (ool-43503a0c.dyn.optonline.net [67.80.58.12]) by mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007))
 with ESMTP id <0JZK004J6OI9QU00@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
 linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:39:46 -0400
From: Vincent C Jones <v.jones@networkingunlimited.com>
Subject: Re: RE: iwl3945 problem with 2.6.25-rc9
In-reply-to: <1208593973.26186.2.camel@johannes.berg>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com>,
	Brian Morrison <bdm@fenrir.org.uk>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Message-id: <1208608786.3980.7.camel@X61.NetworkingUnlimited.com> (sfid-20080419_133959_147025_2DB36C95)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
References: <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB08920043535A1@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB0892004353826@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB08920043539AE@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <fu931e$k1b$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB089200438B6D6@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <1208555842.4848.56.camel@johannes.berg>
 <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB089200438B728@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20080418232358.000fbdf7@peterson.fenrir.org.uk>
 <1208558255.4848.60.camel@johannes.berg>
 <1208558382.4848.63.camel@johannes.berg>
 <1ba2fa240804181728u7a3440cajbba7dcc696d02909@mail.gmail.com>
 <1208593973.26186.2.camel@johannes.berg>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 10:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > At last iwlwifi HW scanning can handle up to 4 essids for direct
> > scan but currently wireless tools interface cannot utilize this.
> 
> Does anybody actually *want* that? I personally dislike the behaviour
> of scanning for all previously known SSIDs actively when hidden SSIDs
> are so uncommon, I see it as an information disclosure vulnerability.

I can't speak for what others may want, but the Payment Card Industry
security guidelines include not broadcasting the SSID as one of their
requirements, if that is what you mean by "hidden SSIDs." 
-- 
Vincent C Jones <v.jones@networkingunlimited.com>
Networking Unlimited, Inc.