4 ms·

I have seen it in at least one other project: https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/,

I have seen it in at least one other project: https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/, https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine I think it's equally understandable, and monster is objectively a more fun word. Seems like not a big deal?

zzzcpan 7y ago
It shifts the narrative to demonize MITM. Ironic seeing a Cloudflare link, given that they are MITMing all traffic. You are not a monster if you are doing it, it's corporations who are monsters if they try to prevent you from doing it and you are fighting for freedom from them. So it's freedom-in-the-middle.
- jraph 7y ago
  It depends on the point of view and the situation. If you are a free software developer reverse-engineering a graphics driver, you sure want to be able to intercept the traffic between the graphics card and the CPU (I don't do driver development so I might be completely off, but I hope you get the point anyway). However, if you are having a conversation with a secret source, you want this freedom to not be intercepted.
  - xg15 7y ago
    Yes, those are the extremes. But the more common case seems to me that you are an app developer selling user data. In this scenario, the app developer certainly has an interest not to be intercepted, however the user and actual owner of the device likely would benefit from interception.
- Spivak 7y ago
  SSL termination isn't the same as MITM and you know that.
aiCeivi9 7y ago
Are we also going to change the middleman to middlemonster?
- Spivak 7y ago
  No, that would usually be intermediary. If you want to be more specific you can say reseller or broker. Monster in the middle is at least cute and conveys the authors intent that this agent is untrusted and assumed malicious. People in this thread clearly don't like being called a monster which I think demonstrates exactly that words matter and these ones are doing their job.
  - mises 7y ago
    No one here is objecting to it as a standalone phrase, but as a replacement for a perfectly good phrase that existed all ready. There is no reason to change existing terminology and cause confusion; who decided this was a problem, any way? It reminds me of Bro being renamed to "zeek" because of the whole "brogrammer" thing, even though it was named before any one ever started complaining about that after Big Brother. It's not a real issue. I wouldn't have a serious problem with it, except that some one who wants to learn more is now stuck searching for one of the three other people who decided this was an actual issue and used it instead of MITM. Again, same as with Bro: now you have to search for two terms, even if you're familiar with the distinction. I can find posts going back to the 90s on Bro; "zeek" has very little in comparison. It turns out even cloud flare used man-in-the-middle in the project, because it was in some other code, I guess: https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine/blob/master/processor.go https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine/blob/master/process... (line 24; now wait for some one to realize his "error" and change it.)
- burkaman 7y ago
  If you're talking about a security attack or some other "monstrous" situation, and you're communicating your ideas clearly, then sure, who cares
- jcranberry 7y ago
  You could probably just say 'the monster' since presumably there's only one relevant monster. I don't think it's a big deal.
tzs 7y ago
Monster has negative connotations. The word he should have used, if an alternative to "Man" is needed, is "Marklar". No negative connotations, and is objectively even more fun than "Monster".
- stordoff 7y ago
  This is noted in the comments: > Some have protested that "monster" has negative connotations, but anyone who grew up with Sesame Street or modern Disney movies knows that’s an unfair stereotype. And Monster is more fun. You like fun, don't you? Don't you?!?

zzzcpan 7y ago

It shifts the narrative to demonize MITM. Ironic seeing a Cloudflare link, given that they are MITMing all traffic. You are not a monster if you are doing it, it's corporations who are monsters if they try to prevent you from doing it and you are fighting for freedom from them. So it's freedom-in-the-middle.

jraph 7y ago
It depends on the point of view and the situation. If you are a free software developer reverse-engineering a graphics driver, you sure want to be able to intercept the traffic between the graphics card and the CPU (I don't do driver development so I might be completely off, but I hope you get the point anyway). However, if you are having a conversation with a secret source, you want this freedom to not be intercepted.
- xg15 7y ago
  Yes, those are the extremes. But the more common case seems to me that you are an app developer selling user data. In this scenario, the app developer certainly has an interest not to be intercepted, however the user and actual owner of the device likely would benefit from interception.
Spivak 7y ago
SSL termination isn't the same as MITM and you know that.

aiCeivi9 7y ago

Are we also going to change the middleman to middlemonster?

Spivak 7y ago
No, that would usually be intermediary. If you want to be more specific you can say reseller or broker. Monster in the middle is at least cute and conveys the authors intent that this agent is untrusted and assumed malicious. People in this thread clearly don't like being called a monster which I think demonstrates exactly that words matter and these ones are doing their job.
- mises 7y ago
  No one here is objecting to it as a standalone phrase, but as a replacement for a perfectly good phrase that existed all ready. There is no reason to change existing terminology and cause confusion; who decided this was a problem, any way? It reminds me of Bro being renamed to "zeek" because of the whole "brogrammer" thing, even though it was named before any one ever started complaining about that after Big Brother. It's not a real issue. I wouldn't have a serious problem with it, except that some one who wants to learn more is now stuck searching for one of the three other people who decided this was an actual issue and used it instead of MITM. Again, same as with Bro: now you have to search for two terms, even if you're familiar with the distinction. I can find posts going back to the 90s on Bro; "zeek" has very little in comparison. It turns out even cloud flare used man-in-the-middle in the project, because it was in some other code, I guess: https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine/blob/master/processor.go https://github.com/cloudflare/mitmengine/blob/master/process... (line 24; now wait for some one to realize his "error" and change it.)
burkaman 7y ago
If you're talking about a security attack or some other "monstrous" situation, and you're communicating your ideas clearly, then sure, who cares
jcranberry 7y ago
You could probably just say 'the monster' since presumably there's only one relevant monster. I don't think it's a big deal.

tzs 7y ago

Monster has negative connotations. The word he should have used, if an alternative to "Man" is needed, is "Marklar". No negative connotations, and is objectively even more fun than "Monster".

stordoff 7y ago
This is noted in the comments: > Some have protested that "monster" has negative connotations, but anyone who grew up with Sesame Street or modern Disney movies knows that’s an unfair stereotype. And Monster is more fun. You like fun, don't you? Don't you?!?