Those who misunderstood " man" as a singular adult male would probably still be substantially confused about most of what the term means merely losing the presumption of the " man" being a male would be a pretty small step in the right direction. Those who understood that " man" wasn't a singular adult male wouldn't find the new term to be any more clear, as they weren't confused in the first place. If we changed the word " man" to a gender-neutral alternative, e.g. Interpretations which don't make that mistake. Interpretations which mistakenly conceptualize the " man" as a singular adult male human. Active filtering is often well-intentioned.įor the purpose of this question, we can probably group interpretations of the term into two categories: In practice, it's often either passive spying or active filtering. It is not assumed to be a physical attack, nor to result in harm, physical or otherwise. The " attack" is a generic undesired interaction. In practice, it's usually not located at equal distances from the endpoints. It is not assumed to be midway between the endpoints. The " middle" is a generic position between the endpoints. It is not assumed to be singular, human, adult, nor male. Intermediary spying-or-communication-alteration eventĬlarifications regarding a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack: Intermediary that spies on or alters communicationsĪctive-or-passive man-in-the-middle attack Intermediary communication-altering eventĪctive-or-passive man-in-the-middle attacker Intermediary that spies on communications I would expect such a company to recommend an alternative term. Our company has determined that the term "man-in-the-middle (attack)" is non-compliant with our stance on gender neutrality. This may of course change over time if "Monster in the Middle" starts to catch on. Variations such as "Monster in the Middle" are fun, but if communication efficiency is a concern, most people are going to find them a distraction. "Man in the middle" is something of a fixed phrase, often abbreviated as MITM. There are other ways, mentioned in other answers, but not ways that will be as easily understood. Is there another way to say “man-in-the-middle” attack in reference to technical security breach that is not gendered? These names come from the common cast of characters in cryptographic literature. Note that two of the most common "men in the middle" in examples are Eve ( here, here, here) and Mallory ( here) - i.e. It's not true that this can't be considered gender neutral - most dictionaries will confirm that there is a sense of the word 'man' that can stand for any person, e.g. I would suggest that your original term, "man-in-the-middle (attack)", remains the best fit. What is the best way to use this terminology and be gender neutral while maintaining communication efficiency? Comments on this answer have been disabled, but it is still accepting other interactions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |