[dmarc-ietf] Response to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations

"Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com> Fri, 17 July 2020 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 491D43A0A38 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 jx2ZtA5Y5jtA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0029E3A0A21 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id k6so8156625ili.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E0cnsdsGVaGkaRULdXyoqIpnOI1/NAL0yltli6m81Bc=; b=XQRWynvIWpkzelxlrrRE/m0J8FGHxRqityW80IJf3/L8++1oYEv/f/WzTOT2+wbRzw RrXFFAQowvtvQxoEkBF2UtM9YdajW9eJBorE9wrS7FZqXlzmOx4la9gsxiYgWh+8HR0W gYLVp2+6HRZvOF9UfRg8Mt99rYoNW+3mH0rnM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E0cnsdsGVaGkaRULdXyoqIpnOI1/NAL0yltli6m81Bc=; b=qSgysApy4NqlJ+uQOmw7sjV+TLVvhdwdbJkZKZ0wqP2/WIQRkW4zmevUYAkBnButdB pmaZZm34Ntaw/8tOD5hj4uPHX6gfWsUrbG+DHPZkMcBouvnhjSL+cWkLqge+SZu2kMIO JdEKABM2BRHngWMdhNqHHl04OSGcW7GBTVpiJqjq4jHYndTy+m0iloBGBEX9wATJ9qkM LMll+7Zm2hWA+yq3CfplGaT+od8OFnHEwUgxsQ2U6rBSU+wXGxJ/37EtPhNcE2oiL6OQ 80q7SKsvvabxxaQ587/I4EgODwNyZiEbkr3LPrHISI9+0IqCLrAR2as+pRhu7tdmmhgt XGCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318PkteNTsRftXwXHnjiJswtFoQZ7ZIZeYn2Ny8++XgGUX8B/fI +CSEE0kR2g6y2fwSuvVJbuqDgwKOwZzLgABx8QW7V2kBVyc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbRAXYVQS/XoJrUm8qVtsqDnfJR7IssIWA49BrNVCCnVd6BMFn7J2q/DDuUdRBfNr67NgfkZV2g8ZGByH9z8s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1082:: with SMTP id r2mr11430502ilj.263.1595010652227; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1o3V00haqJB9s-PXvtV7nJmYE5sJ42a8mE290D+E3Gt-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000056e0d805aaa75bb8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/F0vRYWm4QDaHenoZpwyp21boFCQ>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Response to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:30:55 -0000

Dave writes:

However, for all of the real and serious demonstration of users' being
tricked by deceptive or false content in a message, there is no
evidence that problematic content in a field providing information
about message's author directly contributes to differential and
problematic behavior by the end user.

I'd counter by personal anecdote that we have had to undertake security
remediations because of messages which were forwarded by our CEO to other
employees for responses which happened to contain malware and/or bad links.
Presumably, the cachet which was carried along with "important person says
look into this" overcame whatever native caution or skepticism might have
prevented them from falling prey otherwise.

--Kurt