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

I've heard many bits of response about this draft, most seem supportive, with
one or two believing this is just some kind of virtue signaling.

My opinion is what Jon Callas said:

> I also agree that we should stop -- I've never liked the term because it is
> too vague, and indeed, people use it for both passive and active attacks.

Jon didn't like "active on-path attacker" is unpalatable to many, we could do
something else.  I'd like saag to adopt the document now (or not) because it
addresses a problem that we have.
Jon also suggested, "active in-path attacker"

jon> For example, there are ad-blockers and malware blockers that are active,
jon> on-path *defenses*, and even if they might have peculiar placements in
jon> the path. And of course, the proxy firewalls of yore are also a thing.

Seems reasonable to also speak about active on-path defenses.

--
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+93Q3WUFAme2AdYWHG1jcitpZXRm
QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZWFQB/0VTnDlmRNIEaypDhUGEOhocmYe
C+/fZ2eUiBNk9+zvMoPz+Fd2tstKqJ1xi2H+9HfxIN3gpPPiUSD9iuNkNI5m4pyO
Fku9Wye5mg7Esx50oyAWvojIyQcKV0OfZ6mQxNspZT8F2KsPXP9jSjMJYeECwfmM
C7FPfIkq9AT4fpDI2Khu21ZSTqbM3NYEUP9Fh9G8aanONzauHlSCqlYQU6xhV82e
nqJYA4JW7JEFHMOl0xegL6HnAT2RD1gwDKCio7VGFRjU/Exn1wM2IWzNQ0SBM0XQ
P0iCrlSDEBXiT2kv6Ryg4TatD/NiZYBAWm1qvtIJpMj2RlFy7de/mgHP1tcF
=5vTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----