[Liftyee]

If it's mainly (largely) static IoT devices connecting to an SSID, why not make the SSID hidden so it doesn't fill device screens (controlled by humans who probably don't want the IoT network)? Most commercial IoT products I've used have an option to type a hidden SSID, and your own C++ code definitely can do that.

[zamadatix]

Good highlight. In commercial deployments absolutely, I'd even recommend going as far as hiding any SSID you don't explicitly want people to be manually clicking on with their own devices (i.e. only guest and/or byod should be visible). Not because of security (as the conversation often tangents into) but because the support tickets for "I can't connect to <wrong SSID>" just go away and it clutters screens less as you say.

For home it has its ups and downs depending how much the user cares about understanding Wi-Fi as part of their project vs just doing the minimum to make their project work. If you've already got a Wi-Fi scanner app you're well acquainted with reading (or are willing to spend a short bit of time reading about how to use one to troubleshoot an issue or select the best covering AP at a location) on one of your devices then you're probably the right crowd to hide the SSID at home as well.

[gruez]

>Good highlight. In commercial deployments absolutely, I'd even recommend going as far as hiding any SSID you don't explicitly want people to be manually clicking on with their own devices (i.e. only guest and/or byod should be visible). Not because of security (as the conversation often tangents into) but because the support tickets for "I can't connect to <wrong SSID>" just go away and it clutters screens less as you say.

Thats bad for the anonymity of all your devices, though. Having a "hidden" network saved and on auto-connect means it'll be constantly broadcasting probe packets for those hidden networks.