IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 usage

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Tue, 13 June 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3BE1243F3 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jhcloos.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32x8m25nxigQ for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [IPv6:2604:2880::b24d:a297]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3E9126E3A for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id B2E661E105; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:37:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore17; t=1497386231; bh=GJaIB4KlYmJ8MRaXSgcIXZr9687ZTi5K/iYWQ5UQp/8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=egQHlVxhrzzgI4lJyLAQ4OeLIw1c0j9EGfalrAQtMk7t+jdSX7ILNeXxr2zOQK7Wy fPaNMXZnSeKwBrfYjwnt5WzSZYlI6cJbGttrsPWpyNFUV6B3yH3JcOciRJBGnWNqlr kVeGuVQvarNN4Pf8b0G16bz7akCMOGvQHjm0vB+iYZ0WrXwTQrN6vRK/DH2CNW3ghK Vb2z7vXE1tPDEXh/mzOKUTg6XWs0WNFMH3HyK9hF8R/nQqEqnVSQNeK7Y7RLL6vyii M3afxR47LKnXm1e9No129RaL5zcSuPUrMt1p4E3FP/Xa3o6TOTdUstTCntVVVRPKUp 7NQUg1I7oQT/A==
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id D2BA5107AC446; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5B2CFEEC-9A44-4368-A6BE-24CDF69D01C0@kitterman.com> (Scott Kitterman's message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2017 23:51:24 +0000")
References: <m38tkw53bd.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <CABa8R6s6rzc+Ky8sLWcK7NtforSksEhNRkWVeF=k1v8GC80knw@mail.gmail.com> <5B2CFEEC-9A44-4368-A6BE-24CDF69D01C0@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2016 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:35:26 -0400
Message-ID: <m3bmprpqwh.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 23
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:28:170613:sklist@kitterman.com::gPIC8n/jNIFstZWA:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000BrErm
X-Hashcash: 1:28:170613:dcrup@ietf.org::KoiMfl+cwuOBvVE4:00KCM20
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/vSXp6_Ol-xliCE3I4JcvvXB9mkM>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 usage
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:37:15 -0000

>>>>> "SK" == Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> writes:

SK> How are messages that are signed with both rsa-sha1 and rsa-sha256
SK> counted?  For this purpose they should be in the rsa-sha256 pile.

Indeed they should.  But my earlier report counted ^DKIM lines separately.

Rechecking on them, I found that one spam had 500 DKIM-Signature: blocks.
(All from the same sha256 signer. :)

I just checked by splitting them into sha1 files and sha256 files,
running:

;: diff -U999 .sha*|egrep '^ '

reported 5821 lines.

Many are from mailing lists, where the list signed with 256 and the
sender with 1.  Or similar, but via something like mandrill.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status