I had similar problems some time ago when I did some software upgrades, and there are two things in the information you posted that caught my attention:
1) because you're using ndiswrapper you don't need (nor want) to use the native driver; it seems you have bcm43xx
loaded, though it shouldn't be in use. I suggest blacklisting that so it does not get loaded, because in some cases (on Broadcom cards) it might interfere with ndiswrapper driver (I had this situation) and result in a non-working wireless device. It used to be
echo blacklist bcm43xx >> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist
but it may depend a bit on the distribution you are using if that's the correct file. However to test this you can simply use
to remove the module from the kernel until next reboot.
utils Error: no version specified!
driver version: 1.28
vermagic: 2.6.18-4-686 SMP mod_unload 686 REGPARM gcc-4.1
That's what I had too after the upgrade. Actually I did have the package ndiswrapper-utils
(or equivalent, if named differently) installed but apparently it wasn't the newest version, and for some reason there were two versions of that package available. I run the package installation tool, selected the newer -utils package for installation (didn't remove the old, though) and after it finished my wireless device woke up.
The first step, blacklisting the native module, is not necessarily needed. It's just that you don't need the module so it's there for nothing, so it's all the same to prevent it from being loaded. The second step is what you need, I guess, because you do need ndiswrapper-utils (correct version!), and if ndiswrapper -v tells you there is a problem then it is a problem
after installing the correct version and running ndiswrapper -v it shouldn't tell you about problems. After that if your device won't wake up automatically try to shut it down and then start again, or if that won't help, removen diswrapper from kernel and then re-load (modprobe) it.
EDIT: because eth1 shows wifi information, I don't think the native module is a problem. It's allright (and in my opinion just sensible) that the device is called eth1 and not wlan0 like on some systems; it's ethernet device after all. It is possible by configuration to change the name from eth1 to wlan0 but I personally like it more when it's eth1; it keeps things in order.