IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC-Seal is meaningless security theatre

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Wed, 16 August 2017 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 B6A6D13218F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=EqheXwkx; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=fBlR5mva
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 X2yuR8vr3YTe for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ftp.catinthebox.net (news.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB82F132357 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=723; t=1502905596; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=5p9jr642y3DDvmhGARXpnGhAUgs=; b=EqheXwkxAJOnujYz7Yro9q1Q49Gfx2790SylN+1VXoF1SGIxAZ6FggebB5Mdpn S/zYLI6pPlZrQvIVlJ714WC/3YyFrhLIYGw2MOH+FNXu8eIdDAbBF0gHKjHJL4vD IG5S4KvtagdnzgwS/Q6zZ2qlJ/J6h+jmOrgFDZwPLVGMo=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:46:36 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2969452191.1.4540; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:46:35 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=723; t=1502905557; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=x51+hpl cW1WRzB3LHSQnJ6KghHIVT56sx0FC7BSXu60=; b=fBlR5mva17AFnRbIozazngZ sNggRstPxTihQaFf/ps+lR1rZBSXyPA+2v9/JHjOOldnoNb0QhprfG0hTbtZFDqP DY/85yXoq0JZTVKjiE+L/vK8qDMsT76OxUBH7OxAXjogS+JkO4hkYOb4BeWdyloB I23Mxq94yKeYsVV/t2Bc=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:45:56 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 3511953643.9.490764; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:45:55 -0400
Message-ID: <599484FB.9050908@isdg.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:46:35 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <1502083287.2191248.1065195288.7CDC7FF3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CABuGu1oTMbuLd4yTwecu5sKFnsmH+HiwT1FG=JpySYHzpMTx_w@mail.gmail.com> <1502200759.3946686.1066841264.607B4D0B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <2720431.u3G7bbkkxK@kitterma-e6430> <1502317564.1935379.1068588344.040173AF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a08c7590-ded3-1642-4ffc-07848b3c6cd2@gmail.com> <e14f2130-6f00-4ef1-485b-850a4cc1c48c@gmail.com> <1502495646.4099176.1070896040.2B09B1F8@webmail.messagingengine.com> <166070f0-4ba1-70da-1f73-885b4a7f7640@gmail.com> <1502497178.4103451.1070917304.23DD466D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <598F9484.7020700@isdg.net> <CABuGu1p=oLfLRkuoaDHoz3Cv3_FrURdsFPzkac7jNzBpqBmiSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1p=oLfLRkuoaDHoz3Cv3_FrURdsFPzkac7jNzBpqBmiSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YGlR6Lln1Vj1_c19oojqOIOuZs0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC-Seal is meaningless security theatre
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:46:42 -0000

On 8/13/2017 10:28 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
>     If we even have a DMARC ARC Policy concept, than that may be
>     enough to begin pursuing the high cost of experimentation and
>     development here.
>
>
> Beyond the protocol and usage specs, what are you looking for?
>

A practical purpose for supporting (implementing) this work.   It 
appears ARC wants the network to stamp mail "blindly" as the mail 
travels from point to point.  I am trying to grasp how it helps 
resolve the main issue with "unauthorized" indirect 3rd party 
signatures, in particular when dealing with strong, exclusive DKIM 
signature policy models such as DMARC p=reject.

-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email