A taxonomy of eavesdropping attacks
draft-richardson-saag-onpath-attacker-04
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Richardson , Jonathan Hoyland | ||
| Last updated | 2025-06-25 (Latest revision 2024-12-22) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The terms on-path attacker and MITM Attack have been used in a variety of ways, sometimes interchangeably, and sometimes meaning different things. Increasingly people have become uncomfortable with the gendered term "Man" in the middle and have sought alternatives. This document offers an update on terminology for network attacks, retaining some acronyms terms while redefining the expansion, and clarifying the different kinds of attacks. Consistent terminology is important in describing what kinds of attacks a particular protocol defends against, and which kinds the protocol does not.
Authors
Michael Richardson
Jonathan Hoyland
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)