User-defined connection names don't appear as choices in drop-down menu
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NetworkManager |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Ubuntu network, Bluetooth, keyboard menus |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
network-manager (Ubuntu) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Ubuntu 9.10
network-manager 0.9.4.0-0ubuntu3, Ubuntu 12.04 beta
1. From the network menu, choose "Edit Connections...", then "Wireless".
2. Select a wi-fi network that was in the menu (for example, the one you are currently connected to) and choose "Edit".
3. In the "Connection name" field, enter "Fred", and choose Save.
4. Open the menu.
What you see: The previous network name.
What you should see: "Fred".
In the "Network Connections" dialog it is possible for me to set my own custom "Connection Names". One set, networks appear using these names in the Network Connections dialog.
Now, I click on the nm tray applet and it shows me a list of networks, but the networks are named based on their SSID's - not based on the names that I've supposedly given them!
This can be very frustrating if you live in a place where everyone's network is named "linksys".
Insofar as this presents the user with potentially confusing or ambiguous connection options it allows an attacker to set up their own network mirroring the existing network's SSID and thus encourage illegitimate connections. Presenting the user's own defined names is one way of avoiding this (especially if these were say, italicized, to better show that they are trusted networks).
Changed in network-manager-applet (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Incomplete → Confirmed |
Changed in ubuntu-indicator-mods: | |
status: | Incomplete → Confirmed |
description: | updated |
tags: | added: precise |
Changed in ubuntu-indicator-mods: | |
status: | Confirmed → Invalid |
affects: | network-manager-applet (Ubuntu) → network-manager (Ubuntu) |
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. We appreciate the difficulties you are facing, but this appears to be a "regular" (non-security) bug. I have unmarked it as a security issue since this bug does not show evidence of allowing attackers to cross privilege boundaries nor directly cause loss of data/privacy. Please feel free to report any other bugs you may find.