Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs)

[Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 21, 2018, at 9:48 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thus all X-in-the-middle attackers are "on-path active attackers" but
not all "on-path active attackers" are X-in-the-middle attackers. For
example I do not consider an on-line active attacker that observes
traffic and just inserts new messages to mess things up, for example a
replay attacker, to be an X-in-the middle attacker.

I don't actually think we need to change this particular term, but if we decide that it is worth changing, there are some fairly obvious ways to address your concern here.   E.g., "agent-in-the-middle" or "on-path interception."

I tend to agree with Jari that the technical reason for using clearer terminology is strong; man-in-the-middle is often used for types of on-path attack that you are, rightly, excluding here.