Man in the middle after evil twin

I’ve set up an Evil twin access point using the aircrack suite, what i’m missing is how to complete the man in the middle access point side like the picture shown below, i’ve been suggested ettercap but i’m not familiar with it.

The goal is: enstablish a connection between evil twin and access point and trick the access point to think the evil twin is the client.

Any help?

enter image description here

Is cubical type theory still consistent with univalent excluded middle and univalent choice?

I want to formalize some undergraduate maths in cubical agda, and learning cubical type theory in the proccess. The problem is that I will need univalent excluded middle and univalent choice (and maybe propositional resizing). I know these are consistent with homotopy type theory (although computation is lost when axiom are used), but cubical that type theory is stronger (in the sense that univalence is a theorem). Are this axiom still consistent in the cubical setting? Is there a better way of doing classical theorems in cubical type theory?

How to mitigate credential disclosure in man in the middle attack

I have the followin scenario and looking for a secure solution.

There is a web application, hosted on IIS. The connection is established over TLS 1.2 and is encrypted.

So the steps are

  1. Client connects to the server over ssl

  2. Client sends the username and password (as well xsrf token)

  3. The server authenticates the user and creates an encrypted cookie that will go back and forth.

Assume that we are in a corporate environment were all communication occurs via a proxy server (for example when using SSL Inspection). If the inspector is compromised (quite probable based on this) then the user is vulnurable to credential theft.

I read about the crypto binding solution, but this only secures us from the MITM to not be able to keep the connection alive after the client has stopped creating traffic.

Is there a way to secure the user’s passwords when ssl has been compromised this way?

Man In The Middle Attack On File Uploads

I am using a web service (call it X) which allows files to be uploaded to AWS S3.

The way it works is that an initial call is made to X which then returns a list of file descriptors and also meta information which should be injected into the web form as hidden fields that the user is presented with to choose a file to upload. One of these hidden fields is the url of the S3 bucket where the file will be uploaded to.

When the user chooses a file and clicks submit the file is sent as byte streams to the S3 location.

I see two security concerns here:

  1. The url which is returned from calling X and then set as a hidden field in the form could be hijacked and substituted for another url of the hacker’s choosing
  2. I am not sure if this is possible but the byte stream from the user’s browser to the S3 bucket could be diverted?

Is this paranoia or actual real security concerns?

Need help dealing with what I think is “My Guy” and how I can reach a middle ground with this player

Now, I feel this needs some context. The place I am role playing at is on this sub-reddit called explore fiction. Its a nice little place where people can post the worlds they have built and role play with those that visit their world. The rules are as follows.

1.We are here to have fun and develop our worlds and characters, be civil.

2.No controlling other people’s characters.

3.No erotica, unless the entire post is NSFW (ex. [Scene] Jim’s Exotic Whorehouse.)

4.Follow the rules of the OP, if they say your character is too overpowered for the scene then tone it down.

5.Original characters and settings only! No fanfiction or established characters of any kind.

So obviously I feel that rule 4 is being broken a little. It is pretty inherent since the sub-reddit lacks any hard rules and is purely narrative. This has lead to power conflicts with those I have RP’d with in the past. Back in the day I would let them have their power fantasy and be done with it, but the longer I do this the more I think I need to address it.

Now the guy I am Role playing with is super cool and is relatively new, so I am not trying be a jerk about all this. Here is the conversation we are having on the topic so far.

Part 1 of the conversation

and part 2

How does VPN prevent Man In the Middle at the ISP level [duplicate]

If Man-In-The-Middle is at the ISP level (or even before ISP) it seems like they could perform the handshake, swap keys supply a faked or copied cert. The only thing they wouldn’t know is the private key. But it seems like if they were the client for the endpoint server, and they were the server for the victim, they could create two chains of encryption/decryption and two shared-secrets and no one would be the wiser. I think I’m misunderstanding something, though, because people say that a VPN would protect against this. So the basic question is how does an HTTPS web site cert protect against man in the middle at the ISP level?

Added: I guess the real question here is how does the guv’ment do it? Do they have a “spoof-cert” that is trusted by all CAs? (Or would this need to be a different cert for every coneivable site?)

Is the vulnerability described in rfc6749 10.16 for implicit Flow is comparable to “man in the middle”?

I’m trying to understand if the vulnerability described in the specification for implicit flow : link is the same principle of a man in the middle attack. From what I understood, the malicious client get in the way of the access token grant and then impersonate an issuer. Yes he isn’t really “in the middle” like the aforementioned but there’s still an impersonation in place.

I’m asking here because there might be some concepts I didn’t grasp and I want to gain a full understanding of what I’m trying to implement.

Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

Understanding PDA for odd length string with middle symbol 0

I came across this pdf, which describes the language of odd length string with middle symbol 0 as follows:

enter image description here

Doubts:

  1. I dont understand the transition labels. In standard resources like books by Ullman et al, Linz and in wikipedia, the transition labels take following form:

    • $ a,b/ab$ means if next input symbol is $ a$ and current stack top is $ b$ , then push $ a$ on $ b$
    • $ a,b/\epsilon$ means if next input symbol is $ a$ and current stack top is $ b$ , then pop $ b$
    • $ a,b/a$ means if next input symbol is $ a$ and current stack top is $ b$ , then pop $ b$ and push $ a$

    I dont get meaning of transition labels in diagram $ a,b\rightarrow c$ . Some one explained me that its, if next next input symbol is $ a$ , pop $ b$ and push $ c$ . I feel, if this interpretation is correct, then this notation is insufficient as it will describe both $ a,b/ab$ and $ a,c/ac$ as $ a,\epsilon\rightarrow a$ . Am I right with this, or I understood the notation incorrectly?

  2. Assuming above interpretation to be correct, loop on $ q_1$ pushes all input symbols, be it 1 or 0. Then for $ 0$ at any position (not necessarily middle position), it transits to $ q_2$ . Loop at $ q_2$ pops all symbols. I dont get how above PDA forces middle symbol to be $ 0$ . Also I dont get how it ensures length of $ w$ is odd.

  3. If given PDA is incorrect, can we prepare correct one by re-labelling as follows:

    • Loop at $ q_0$ : $ \{(1,$ /1);(0,$ /1);(0,0/00);(0,1/01);(1,0/10);(0,1/01)\}$
    • Transition $ q_0-q_1$ : $ \{(0,0/0);(0,1/1)\}$
    • Loop at $ q_2$ : $ \{(0,0/\epsilon);(0,1/\epsilon);(1,0/\epsilon);(1,1/\epsilon)\}$

    So, its CFL not deterministic CFL, right?