• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    The point is that Cloudflare is a provider that you can choose to have as a part of your own infrastructure.

    It is NOT a man in the middle as man in the middle implies “attack”

    If Cloudflare is a man in the middle, i can make similar evil claims about anyone using Google Drive or Microsoft crapware. Loads of governments store sensitive documents on Microsoft services and Microsoft actually actively breaks contracts by messing with said data.

    At least, as far as we know, Cloudflare has no I’ll will.

    Yet

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Cloudflare is a provider that you can choose to have as a part of your own infrastructure.

      Indeed.

      man in the middle implies “attack”

      That can be a convenient shorthand if the parties in a discussion agree to use it as such in context. For example, in a taxonomy of cryptographic attacks, it would make sense. It is not the general meaning, though, at least not a universally accepted one. Similarly, “counter” does not imply “counter attack”, unless we happen to be discussing attack strategy.

      More to the point, nothing that I wrote misrepresents the situation as was claimed by that other person. If I had meant attack, I would have said attack. Rather, they made a leap of logic because I (like most of my colleagues) don’t happen to follow a convention that they like, and picked a fight over it. No thanks.

      • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Since you’re going to childishly talk about me and infer something that is entirely false, I’m going to step in here.

        First, you claim it’s “a convenient shorthand”, except “middleman” is far shorter than “man-in-the-middle”. So that argument is entirely false.

        Next, “nothing that I wrote misrepresents the situation”? You literally linked the Wikipedia article for “Man in the middle attack”, but conveniently left out the word “attack” both when referring to it and in the link itself which redirected to the actual Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack.

        You are clearly intentionally misrepresenting the subject in order to frame things to suit your narrative. That’s not just a claim out of nowhere, I provided evidence to support this.

        And get out of here with your pathetic “like most of my colleagues” pretentious attitude.