[saag] Re: On path Active Attackers, and Meddlers in the M iddle

Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I remember doing a quick informal survey of the usage of related terms
    > in research papers at some time in the late 2010s, and there was a
    > clear consensus for MITM, and, incredibly, still for the
    > “man-in-the-middle” expansion.

    > For what RFC 4949 describes as MITM, we should stick with MITM, but
    > maybe update with the better expansion.  (For other active on-path
    > attacks, and specifically for describing the capability instead of the
    > attack, we can use the more general term.)

Yes, so MITM properly is Active On-Path Attacker.
The idea is that MITM is a CNAME for Active On-Path Attacker.

We could phrase this document as explicitely OLD/NEW updating RFC4949, but I
don't think it would be that useful.

    > [Next lecture that involves explaining this concept is scheduled for
    > Tuesday.]

Enjoy.


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFKBAEBCgA0FiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmd7AigWHG1jcitpZXRm
QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZVLCB/sFO8HrACPmauPRoSJ1XjPTvsRK
y49mrlCeGC+/oxbUU0ABscjMGQ8ePTDaPuopBteV0Lv4FfGoDcbgl88RDL7bxpru
ftlkPI5GR6CxrG55ZPsGNo8/SaH0LhJhPeNdFqLXG0ecxBIA4RVQue2v9GvG/kwm
OmlBFtaZsZGYi5w58Q0agrvsIYns/ChcERcHfkFXRuNN7nqAlZ0CYcSBjX7tFiUd
2gxDRhvr05h7aWQ8kFgDemHIHDmXcfGuTyoBGMtt8lGFm7uosZkyAP60nDRMjN7f
6LisvggAroBo7rYb2FW8nmxyPGSdbIN7WpSS4B+g7wVgpshxNA8FQ83/5klg
=cAYo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----