Re: [dmarc-ietf] cousin domain definition (was Re: Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Sat, 06 July 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A7B21F9B8E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GY3burpkSP0x for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22b.google.com (mail-oa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B94821F9A23 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so4677027oag.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f+B6YWstci99wC2kmTlR1bbebcuzM3LNDPMeCE3jZYA=; b=vvzsrmBTnEXWX5yOF13WZjGDFrmcNCMar9iesEynemy4ctd18eqMBrxwQmKG0Rfs8C g2ws5qFYZxV744kJm6R9Jw4VcZ17Cu0Dpvewvj4/ZlQUPS9TRfM5EgpzjDYUwLvZDsas T2e94uyvJOzoDLTpzitKZdkK39CFeIVql0BcEOhZTSldS6xdfW3LGG05GfFMeLnCmhIE kBjAEKYIYO1ztS46sMrYoWJmMzEIuK4XepxLwKu9vCqNzaaHMSTWtFerP4hz7kq5UTAx uDxI7PuY8P96WKjRWGp+svYUxk+qIl9hesMHdb+d7EeN3FHJo5OBIx7JT3AZgpqRVCHD 57TA==
X-Received: by 10.60.96.9 with SMTP id do9mr15757292oeb.49.1373136129761; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm23767344oby.5.2013.07.06.11.42.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51D864EC.1040105@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:41:48 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Simerson <matt@tnpi.net>
References: <519B47DC.20008@cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYZOp1FNVSAmzXYkZG_O3Yv+EQrAKKLpRiE5svcOMamTA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130523002139.0da7ac58@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwYT6BS=HGLX1-u80aqaJWefipT5tcg5Ut_549y4rOej9g@mail.gmail.com> <51D858EB.3030202@gmail.com> <BD1F96A6-2D86-4FE7-89CC-E52CA32670D0@tnpi.net>
In-Reply-To: <BD1F96A6-2D86-4FE7-89CC-E52CA32670D0@tnpi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] cousin domain definition (was Re: Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:42:11 -0000

Thanks for the quick feedback.

some additional thoughts...


On 7/6/2013 11:18 AM, Matt Simerson wrote:
>>     A cousin domain is a registered domain name that is deceptively
>> similar to a target domain name.  The target domain is *usually
>> *familiar to many end-users, and therefore imparts a degree of trust.
>>  The deceptive similarity can trick the user by embedding the
>> essential parts of the target name, in a new string, or it can use
>> some variant of the target name, such as replacing 'i' with '1'.
>
> I inserted the word 'usually'.

That's a kind of careful phrasing that makes sense for precise 
specification, but I think is actually distracting for the usage here.

That is, I think that extra qualifiers in definitions are, ummmm... 
usually distracting...

It's not that it's wrong; it's that I doubt it's as helpful as we'd like.


> In addition to providing basic examples, perhaps include the well
> defined and recognized terms: typosquatting, and IDN homographs?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typosquatting
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack

yeah, and probably cite the dhs.gov text, to show some history to the 
key phrase.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net