MAN IN THE MIDDLE (MITM) ATTACK

Navigation menu

How a Man-In-The-Middle Attack Affects Email Communication and How to Prevent It
Cryptographic attacks Computer network security Transport Layer Security. All they need is to be within the reception range of a wireless access point and they can become the man-in-the-middle. A public key infrastructure , such as Transport Layer Security , may harden Transmission Control Protocol against Man-in-the-middle-attacks. The man-in-the middle attack intercepts a communication between two systems. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Preventing Man-In-The-Middle Attack in Email Communications

Update your browser to access the Norton website

It is also important to not open attachments without knowing what they are and who they are from. However, an MITM attack involves a person posing as someone you know. This could also alert them that an attacker has hacked their system.

The next step is for you to take action and secure your online communications. You can do this by starting with email. Using an email service that encrypts your communications can keep hackers away from personal details, preventing them from causing you harm later. Remember, cyber security is important to everyone, so every person that secures communications makes an impact on internet users as a whole. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.

Learn how your comment data is processed. Encrypt Your Email free MB mailbox. Privacy and data protection laws in Switzerland. Secure Swiss Data development timeline. August 22nd, 0 Comments. Why is your data more expensive than your device.

August 21st, 0 Comments. What can I do to increase my online privacy? August 17th, 0 Comments. Leave A Comment Cancel reply Comment. In cryptography and computer security , a man-in-the-middle attack MITM is an attack where the attacker secretly relays and possibly alters the communication between two parties who believe they are directly communicating with each other.

One example of man-in-the-middle attacks 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 reception range of an unencrypted wireless access point Wi-Fi could insert himself as a man-in-the-middle. As an attack that aims at circumventing mutual authentication , or lack thereof, a man-in-the-middle attack can succeed only when the attacker can impersonate each endpoint to their satisfaction as expected from the legitimate ends.

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.

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, a man-in-the-middle attack can begin.

Mallory sends a forged message to Alice that purports to come 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 Bob originally sent to Alice.

When Bob receives the newly enciphered message, he believes it came from Alice. This example [3] [4] [5] 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 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 use 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.

A public key infrastructure , such as Transport Layer Security , may harden Transmission Control Protocol against Man-in-the-middle-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, though the default behavior of most connections is to only authenticate the server.

However, these methods require a human in the loop in order to successfully initiate the transaction. HTTP Public Key Pinning , 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. Latency examination can potentially detect the attack in certain situations, [8] such as with long calculations that lead into tens of seconds like hash functions.

Man-In-The-Middle Attack in Email Communication

Leave a Reply