From casual reading over the years, I've frequently encountered statements to the effect that hidden networks (i.e. wireless networks that does not broadcast its SSID) are unsafe, and that you should configure the wireless router with WPA2-PSK.

That implies that a hidden network and WPA2-PSK are mutually exclusive.
Or, put another way, that implies that a hidden network with X security is less secure than a non-hidden network with that same X security.
But my router seems to allow the capability to configure both independently, as in this screenshot:
enter image description here

Is a hidden network with "X" security less secure than a non-hidden network with that same "X" security (whether it is WPA2-PSK, or what have you)?
If yes, why?
That implies that hiding a network somehow "undoes" some aspect of the security provided by WPA2-PSK, etc. -- can someone please explain if this is so, and why?

  • 5
    The answer is no.
    – DavidPostill
    Aug 27, 2022 at 18:21
  • Agree - No. I use my Windows 11 machine in a location where few people are around and use open wireless (all I have available) and it works fine.
    – John
    Aug 27, 2022 at 18:28
  • 2
    "Use suggestions to ask for more information or suggest improvements. Avoid answering questions in comments." Even if the answer is "no" you can still post that as an answer... Aug 29, 2022 at 7:15
  • 1
    Allowing WPA2-PSK [AES] alone is more secure than also allowing WPA-PSK [TKIP]. The only reason to use WPA is if you have extremely old devices which do not support WPA2. But in 2022 it's very unlikely: WPA2 came out in 2004. Just ditch WPA1! Aug 29, 2022 at 8:56
  • 2
    "_ That implies that a hidden network and WPA2-PSK are mutually exclusive_" they aren't, but many people just though "hey, if my network is hidden, that's enough security, I don't need WPA2-PSK or anything else like that", which most definitely isn't true at all.
    – jcaron
    Aug 30, 2022 at 16:06

3 Answers 3


No, they're not "less secure" – but they're also not more secure than normal networks, either. It would be unsafe to rely on hidden SSID as your primary security mechanism instead of WPA2.

(For example, a hidden network that uses legacy WEP can be discovered and cracked as easily as a non-hidden one, therefore it would be unsafe to use "but it's hidden" as an excuse to delay upgrading WEP networks to WPA2.)

Hidden networks handle WPA and WPA2 the same way as normal networks; the only difference is that instead of the access point revealing its name, client devices actively probe for it (and thus reveal its name wherever you go anyway), but otherwise the handshake proceeds as usual.

Hidden SSID is more appropriately used for point-to-point links where the client devices are statically configured for a specific network and having it show up in everyone's network list would only be unnecessary clutter (e.g. in a city there might be 10-20 Wi-Fi-based PtP links running above your head).

  • 4
    I recall using the kernel interface to WiFi access point awhile ago. I could see hidden networks and join them like they weren't hidden. I had no idea what they were called because I didn't know how to interrogate them to get their names but joining was no issue.
    – Joshua
    Aug 28, 2022 at 2:56
  • So, another example of "security by obfuscurity is not security".
    – BruceWayne
    Aug 30, 2022 at 0:24

A hidden network is generally regarded as being less secure for the client.

A client seeking to join a non-hidden network is able to passively listen for the access-point to broadcast it's identity. A client seeking to join a hidden network must itself broadcast "hello network ssid"

A rogue access-point overhearing these client broadcasts can pretend that it is the requested access-point. If the client accepts a connection to an unencrypted network as allowable (thankfully rare these days) then the rogue access-point has MiTM'ed the client.

  • 2
    @user570286 My client (wpa_supplicant) will refuse to connect to a hidden network if its encryption is different to what's listed in the configuration.
    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29, 2022 at 12:42
  • 5
    As I understand this answer, the danger is, a bad actor can listen for my laptop broadcasting "hello, eeeeeee" and therefore he knows there's a network named eeeeeee, so he can run malicious software that says "I'm eeeeeee", and intercept StoneThrow's laptop connection. But since a non-hidden network broadcasts "my name is aaaaaaa" doesn't that result in the same consequence: bad actor knows there's a network named aaaaaaa so he runs malicious software that says "I'm aaaaaaa" and intercept connecting PCs?
    – StoneThrow
    Aug 29, 2022 at 14:36
  • 6
    @StoneThrow If you ever connected to a hidden network your device will keep actively polling for it (to see if it comes back in range) even if you are in a totally different location. That means that the laptop keeps actively inviting bad actors to present if with a fake version of that network. This doesn't happen for non-hidden networks, because the laptop can passively listen to see if they are in range. Effectively this polling greatly increases the exposure to possible attacks.
    – Tonny
    Aug 29, 2022 at 18:05
  • 7
    @StoneThrow If you live in NYC and connect to a network called "StoneThrow's Apartment NYC" and you come to LA and it's a hidden network, your device is broadcasting "Hello, is StoneThrow's Apartment NYC there?" and my device can say "Hey, yes, I'm StoneThrow's Apartment NYC". If it wasn't hidden, your device wouldn't broadcast and I'd somehow to guess to say "Hi, I'm StoneThrow's Apartment NYC"
    – user253751
    Aug 29, 2022 at 21:58
  • 3
    @StoneThrow The issue for the client is not only the MITM threat; it's also a location tracking issue, if the adversary has access to a large network of listening access points. Modern devices may randomize client MAC addresses to make it harder to track, but if you are constantly broadcasting a unique set of hidden SSIDs that you are trying to join, it defeats this randomization.
    – b0fh
    Aug 30, 2022 at 13:23

Even if your network router is broadcasting the SSID, there are access point poising where a bad actor could just copy the exact name of a publicly broadcasted access point, and you as the client just happen to connect to it and start typing in a password. In a large populated area, if many people are trying to access that AP, that password can be intercepted pretty quickly. And now someone has access to a private network.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .