4 ms·

> HTTPS is explicitly designed to prevent a Monster-in-the-Middle (MiTM) Monsters don't exist. If people are really committed to erase anything that has the wo

> HTTPS is explicitly designed to prevent a Monster-in-the-Middle (MiTM) Monsters don't exist. If people are really committed to erase anything that has the word "man" in it, at least they should try to be less lazy and use a term for people outside kindergarten.

soylentgraham 4y ago
What is your suggestion? Bad actor in the middle?
- shaky-carrousel 4y ago
  Person in the middle. If you want to replace man with a generic form, use person. Monster is childish, and lazy.
  - macguillicuddy 4y ago
    Person is lazier - it doesn't even maintain the acronym. Perhaps if you'd suggested Malefactor in the Middle it would have been a more convincing argument? In general I don't consider 'monster' to be childish - it's often used to refer to sexual preditors, for example. What we're seeing in this line of discussion is that language is mutable and subjective - and for that reason the author's use of words is a justified as any other.
    - Handytinge 4y ago
      I've got a simple way for you to maintain the acronym...
- omegabravo 4y ago
  machine? Machine in the middle is probably even more accurate than man. Keeps the same acronym too which is nice. Person is the obvious alternative that is gender neutral
macguillicuddy 4y ago
Ugg - who cares! Let the author use whatever language they are comfortable with, especially if they're trying to avoid offense. The meaning of the phrase is clear to everyone so what does it matter if they've used a different term.
- shaky-carrousel 4y ago
  I do care. It's no excuse for bad writing. Monster is childish and lazy.
  - devonallie 4y ago
    Being this immovable is childish and intellectually lazy.
    - shaky-carrousel 4y ago
      Right. Because replying what it is essentially a variation of "I'm rubber, you are glue" is evidently mature.
    - makeitrain 4y ago
      Imagine watching an AvE video and not laughing at his use of language.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
7ewis 4y ago
Man was always intended as being gender neutral anyway: >The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)
- macguillicuddy 4y ago
  True - but there's no reason why language shouldn't continue to evolve with society. There are many instances where common words or phrases have changed over time in line with changing societal conditions. "It's [supposed to mean | always meant] this" just isn't a great argument for such mutable systems as languages. Also it seems like such a tiny personal cost to tweak one's use of language where it may make a non-zero impact on some of our biggest social challenges.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good replacement. Then there's changes to documentation, wikis, and other written documents. Not to mention time spent discussing alternatives and spreading the word. On a personal level, it may be a few tiny tweaks but also very tiny personal impact. On a global scale, it could be a larger impact but also takes a lot more effort (combined effort of millions of tiny tweaks). Whether that effort is worth the payoff is debatable, especially considering what other initiatives that effort could be directed to.
    - macguillicuddy 4y ago
      This is a good point :-) I suppose if we gradually evolve language over time then we amortise and reduce any cost. I don't think we necessarily need to go around rewriting any books for most issues - but if this blog author (and others) tweak their language, maybe the next book to be written on the issue will make a more meaningful step forward, without any refactor cost. In any case there seems to be be no argument here that a given author shouldn't choose to tweak their words as they see fit where meaning is still clear - something that the parent commenter was implying as an issue.
skyyler 4y ago
Monster can mean "extremely wicked person" so I think Monster-in-the-Middle is quite apt.
skibz 4y ago
You could certainly argue that "M" standing for "man" in this acronym is the most commonly accepted interpretation. There do appear to be a few others, though. "Monster" is mentioned second to "man", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack
- yunohn 4y ago
  I’m a completely uninterested bystander, who has no issue using “monster”. But the Wikipedia mention links to a Cloudflare blog post from 2019, which is around the time Big Tech started renaming CS terminology. You can’t use that as proof of long-standing usage.
ericlaw 4y ago
Is your contention here that there's somehow a human male with two Ethernet ports that is manipulating HTTPS traffic and I'm just too "lazy" to admit that? https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/

soylentgraham 4y ago

What is your suggestion? Bad actor in the middle?

shaky-carrousel 4y ago
Person in the middle. If you want to replace man with a generic form, use person. Monster is childish, and lazy.
- macguillicuddy 4y ago
  Person is lazier - it doesn't even maintain the acronym. Perhaps if you'd suggested Malefactor in the Middle it would have been a more convincing argument? In general I don't consider 'monster' to be childish - it's often used to refer to sexual preditors, for example. What we're seeing in this line of discussion is that language is mutable and subjective - and for that reason the author's use of words is a justified as any other.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    I've got a simple way for you to maintain the acronym...
omegabravo 4y ago
machine? Machine in the middle is probably even more accurate than man. Keeps the same acronym too which is nice. Person is the obvious alternative that is gender neutral

macguillicuddy 4y ago

Ugg - who cares! Let the author use whatever language they are comfortable with, especially if they're trying to avoid offense. The meaning of the phrase is clear to everyone so what does it matter if they've used a different term.

shaky-carrousel 4y ago
I do care. It's no excuse for bad writing. Monster is childish and lazy.
- devonallie 4y ago
  Being this immovable is childish and intellectually lazy.
  - shaky-carrousel 4y ago
    Right. Because replying what it is essentially a variation of "I'm rubber, you are glue" is evidently mature.
  - makeitrain 4y ago
    Imagine watching an AvE video and not laughing at his use of language.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

7ewis 4y ago

Man was always intended as being gender neutral anyway: >The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

macguillicuddy 4y ago
True - but there's no reason why language shouldn't continue to evolve with society. There are many instances where common words or phrases have changed over time in line with changing societal conditions. "It's [supposed to mean | always meant] this" just isn't a great argument for such mutable systems as languages. Also it seems like such a tiny personal cost to tweak one's use of language where it may make a non-zero impact on some of our biggest social challenges.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good replacement. Then there's changes to documentation, wikis, and other written documents. Not to mention time spent discussing alternatives and spreading the word. On a personal level, it may be a few tiny tweaks but also very tiny personal impact. On a global scale, it could be a larger impact but also takes a lot more effort (combined effort of millions of tiny tweaks). Whether that effort is worth the payoff is debatable, especially considering what other initiatives that effort could be directed to.
  - macguillicuddy 4y ago
    This is a good point :-) I suppose if we gradually evolve language over time then we amortise and reduce any cost. I don't think we necessarily need to go around rewriting any books for most issues - but if this blog author (and others) tweak their language, maybe the next book to be written on the issue will make a more meaningful step forward, without any refactor cost. In any case there seems to be be no argument here that a given author shouldn't choose to tweak their words as they see fit where meaning is still clear - something that the parent commenter was implying as an issue.

skyyler 4y ago

Monster can mean "extremely wicked person" so I think Monster-in-the-Middle is quite apt.

skibz 4y ago

You could certainly argue that "M" standing for "man" in this acronym is the most commonly accepted interpretation. There do appear to be a few others, though. "Monster" is mentioned second to "man", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack

yunohn 4y ago
I’m a completely uninterested bystander, who has no issue using “monster”. But the Wikipedia mention links to a Cloudflare blog post from 2019, which is around the time Big Tech started renaming CS terminology. You can’t use that as proof of long-standing usage.

ericlaw 4y ago

Is your contention here that there's somehow a human male with two Ethernet ports that is manipulating HTTPS traffic and I'm just too "lazy" to admit that? https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/