In cryptography and computer security, a man-in-the-middle, monster-in-the-middle,[1][2]machine-in-the-middle, monkey-in-the-middle[3] (MITM) or person-in-the-middle[4] (PITM) attack is a cyberattack where the attacker secretly relays and possibly alters the communications between two parties who believe that they are directly communicating with each other. One example of a MITM attack is active eavesdropping, in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them to make them believe they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker. The attacker must be able to intercept all relevant messages passing between the two victims and inject new ones. This is straightforward in many circumstances; for example, an attacker within the reception range of an unencrypted Wi-Fi access point could insert themselves as a man-in-the-middle.[5][6][7]
Middle synonyms, middle pronunciation, middle translation, English dictionary definition of middle. Equally distant from extremes or limits; central: the middle point on a line. Being at neither one extreme nor the other, as of a sequence.
As it aims to circumvent mutual authentication, a MITM attack can succeed only when the attacker impersonates each endpoint sufficiently well to satisfy their expectations. Most cryptographic protocols include some form of endpoint authentication specifically to prevent MITM attacks. For example, TLS can authenticate one or both parties using a mutually trusted certificate authority.[8][6]
Suppose Alice wishes to communicate with Bob. Meanwhile, Mallory wishes to intercept the conversation to eavesdrop and optionally to deliver a false message to Bob.
First, Alice asks Bob for his public key. If Bob sends his public key to Alice, but Mallory is able to intercept it, an MITM attack can begin. Mallory sends Alice a forged message that appears to originate from Bob, but instead includes Mallory's public key.
Alice, believing this public key to be Bob's, encrypts her message with Mallory's key and sends the enciphered message back to Bob. Mallory again intercepts, deciphers the message using her private key, possibly alters it if she wants, and re-enciphers it using the public key she intercepted from Bob when he originally tried to send it to Alice. When Bob receives the newly enciphered message, he believes it came from Alice.
This example[9] shows the need for Alice and Bob to have some way to ensure that they are truly each using each other's public keys, rather than the public key of an attacker. Otherwise, such attacks are generally possible, in principle, against any message sent using public-key technology. A variety of techniques can help defend against MITM attacks.
MITM attacks can be prevented or detected by two means: authentication and tamper detection. Authentication provides some degree of certainty that a given message has come from a legitimate source. Tamper detection merely shows evidence that a message may have been altered.
All cryptographic systems that are secure against MITM attacks provide some method of authentication for messages. Most require an exchange of information (such as public keys) in addition to the message over a secure channel. Such protocols, often using key-agreement protocols, have been developed with different security requirements for the secure channel, though some have attempted to remove the requirement for any secure channel at all.[10]
A public key infrastructure, such as Transport Layer Security, may harden Transmission Control Protocol against MITM attacks. In such structures, clients and servers exchange certificates which are issued and verified by a trusted third party called a certificate authority (CA). If the original key to authenticate this CA has not been itself the subject of a MITM attack, then the certificates issued by the CA may be used to authenticate the messages sent by the owner of that certificate. Use of mutual authentication, in which both the server and the client validate the other's communication, covers both ends of a MITM attack. If the server or client's identity is not verified or deemed as invalid, the session will end.[11] However, the default behavior of most connections is to only authenticate the server, which means mutual authentication is not always employed and MITM attacks can still occur.
Attestments, such as verbal communications of a shared value (as in ZRTP), or recorded attestments such as audio/visual recordings of a public key hash[12] are used to ward off MITM attacks, as visual media is much more difficult and time-consuming to imitate than simple data packet communication. However, these methods require a human in the loop in order to successfully initiate the transaction.
In a corporate environment, successful authentication (as indicated by the browser's green padlock) does not always imply secure connection with the remote server. Corporate security policies might contemplate the addition of custom certificates in workstations' web browsers in order to be able to inspect encrypted traffic. As a consequence, a green padlock does not indicate that the client has successfully authenticated with the remote server but just with the corporate server/proxy used for SSL/TLS inspection.
HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP), sometimes called 'certificate pinning,' helps prevent a MITM attack in which the certificate authority itself is compromised, by having the server provide a list of 'pinned' public key hashes during the first transaction. Subsequent transactions then require one or more of the keys in the list must be used by the server in order to authenticate that transaction.
DNSSEC extends the DNS protocol to use signatures to authenticate DNS records, preventing simple MITM attacks from directing a client to a malicious IP address.
Latency examination can potentially detect the attack in certain situations,[13] such as with long calculations that lead into tens of seconds like hash functions. To detect potential attacks, parties check for discrepancies in response times. For example: Say that two parties normally take a certain amount of time to perform a particular transaction. If one transaction, however, were to take an abnormal length of time to reach the other party, this could be indicative of a third party's interference inserting additional latency in the transaction.
Quantum Cryptography, in theory, provides tamper-evidence for transactions through the no-cloning theorem. Protocols based on quantum cryptography typically authenticate part or all of their classical communication with an unconditionally secure authentication scheme. As an example Wegman-Carter authentication.[14]
Captured network traffic from what is suspected to be an attack can be analyzed in order to determine whether or not there was an attack and determine the source of the attack, if any. Important evidence to analyze when performing network forensics on a suspected attack includes:[15]
A notable non-cryptographic MITM attack was perpetrated by a Belkinwireless networkrouter in 2003. Periodically, it would take over an HTTP connection being routed through it: this would fail to pass the traffic on to destination, but instead itself responded as the intended server. The reply it sent, in place of the web page the user had requested, was an advertisement for another Belkin product. After an outcry from technically literate users, this 'feature' was removed from later versions of the router's firmware.[16]
In 2011, a security breach of the Dutch certificate authority DigiNotar resulted in the fraudulent issuing of certificates. Subsequently, the fraudulent certificates were used to perform MITM attacks.[17]
In 2013, the Nokia's Xpress Browser was revealed to be decrypting HTTPS traffic on Nokia's proxy servers, giving the company clear text access to its customers' encrypted browser traffic. Nokia responded by saying that the content was not stored permanently, and that the company had organizational and technical measures to prevent access to private information.[18]
In 2017, Equifax withdrew its mobile phone apps following concern about MITM vulnerabilities.[19]
Other notable real-life implementations include the following:

Received August, 1975; revised September 1977
No tags, suggest one.
Like the song's title 'Middle' he (DJ Snake) is torn between reality and fantasy. For example, there's a part in the video where they're flying (fantasy) but, actually they were running down the street (reality). The girl, however, is both in his reality and his fantasy.
This song can not only be between a romantically involved relationship but someone who is an angel thats how I took it, this song played when I loss someone I took it like they are with me always wishing things didnt end so badly.
i think that the song is about regret and not fulfilling what you really wanted to do within the mix of reality and fantasy and what actually happened and now you are regretting it and you now want to change the past but that is not possible time is impossible to turn back. Wishing you could have everything back but now she is GONE.
I think it’s all a reference to the movie Inception. Go line by line and everything refers to Inception. The opening lyrics are the start of Cobb’s problems. Feel free to check it out for yourself.
i think it mean is to not make big trouble so you can't go back to the past and fix it? :/
I think it means that he like someone but regret her a first and know wants to turn back to time to make it alright for both of them
Someone that has taken advantage of people that have helped him. Lied,stolen,manipulated ,people in their 70s. A felon from the state prison out of Texas. A piece of shit with no remorse. Good thing older children ran him off. Should be back in jail. Warning, don't believe this jail birds, all you have to do is watch tv to figure out they are snakes leaching off the old and frail.someday maybe they will have a higher power to judge them.
It means its never to late to start over.. build a new world for us 2. He will make a place for her in his fantasy and reality...
The song is about someone who's missing a person whom he has broken up with. It might be that person's fault for the break up. So he wants them to get back together and enjoy like old times. At the end of of the song theres a part which says(just thank the children) suggesting this might have a married couple.
It may be about he met a girl and she's left. And he is saying he wants to turn back to to time to see here again. He's missing her.
It's about how he regrets doing what he has done and wishing he can start a new life with a girl he has met.
Justin Bieber song meanings
Zedd song meanings
Maroon 5 song meanings
Ed Sheeran song meanings
Charlie Puth song meanings
| Hats off to the Bull | Bulldog |
| Saferwaters | Bulldog |
| Still Running | anonymous |
| Jumpin' Jack Flash | anonymous |
| Happier | anonymous |
| Happy Together | anonymous |
| Pink | anonymous |
| Outrunning Karma | anonymous |
| Good Day Sunshine | anonymous |
| Dead Girls | anonymous |
| Overjoyed | anonymous |
| Eye of the Tiger | anonymous |
| Monsters | anonymous |
| Airplains | anonymous |
| Keep Breathing | anonymous |
| 1 | One Direction |
|---|---|
| 2 | Taylor Swift |
| 3 | Michael Jackson |
| 4 | Eminem |
| 5 | Bruno Mars |
| 6 | Harry Styles |
| 7 | Beatles |
| 8 | Billie Eilish |
| 9 | Melanie Martinez |
| 10 | XXXTENTACION |
| Blueneck Chris Housman |
| Waves Luke Bryan |
| Shy Away Twenty One Pilots |
| Prom Night Riovaz |
| Met Him Last Night Demi Lovato |
| Settlin' Down Miranda Lambert |
| Only A Woman Matt Lang |
| Film Out BTS |
| Songs about Not Being Good Enough |
| Songs with Figurative Language |
| Songs about Betrayal and Double Crossing |
| Songs about Young Love |
| Songs that Tell a Story |
| Songs about Looking Back on Life |
| Songs about Fear and Insecurity |
| Songs about Losing Innocence |
| Songs about Being Sorry / Apology songs |
| Songs with Religious Themes |
| All Song Categories |
