Re: [dmarc-ietf] reporting security requirements

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 44C853A18DC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 g6eeR8EoWadr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 CBF2C3A18DB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id q2so5667308plk.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=WvBNEVl2j8aMKAaFs/2NKPys9VhDapPZxWrEVEhN2LM=; b=BCcDepQLqqxnzhCdwNKp0gOm05EypkLYbxZ1d3BCvX9SRsiRNqbpOQMRRH3EvJisZf MCd1smo7x/+C27hyxKfieHJM2SlomzCE8IJ6lEqw8qExWMfQnrmxSm9/+uOBmJVlmJr+ rxxId3vjfKPzAI/BznXO6GwzhEtb0/TMEiPyw7fqLbEQcTvv8ttrisNJWwyG8aHlVDwn liP8l98lCylCuTCID3j/tAwp9Ij++JV3t+IsPIwhp+pdCYs8dqKhHOFEo8CRvMyvHQ7R OD6sS+2RgRzvKJpKTRjqGmjrnEIZnc4GEO7HrKl+oOQe6/phdl/D/UTRFeJ4C7Iw6h8o M0Pw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=WvBNEVl2j8aMKAaFs/2NKPys9VhDapPZxWrEVEhN2LM=; b=k0O2bUoXF21E886xVYdqYtohRB3ZKedDWGDi7LU43qJQqyo9KuiDpwf90H9RdaS5g5 CsMC6DisZIaxuZjySFDSIVNA5WzKTipn2+0ktrL6Cs/G6Hbq38vdZXVZOQSMSsPBjfHK d6YJ9pFFeQ0kMybZrNJHQ/V9gGbuq3wkbO4vJl0OWCGnngmzuekqX5p4zgybc3zwhIYS 51SW70gz4NQB5y9bN/cq/OWWY1wpVCdVpc2h2bhQbh8AW8CT813MzsTbP9dqCUOWrpDa ct+AXcm09S/gXlk8dCDfQoYiPs4L4ONCrV/KQmVijtErjxpwQGiXYxZab0uF8/PapjOf YWTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BmhPOA/6UWGpGbwzC3Xkh2v/HLNCdXQZkoQMkV1NgAQurJUO5 xAxer9ZhX+cprJNX9LnI5gi7e0SSJZzIlw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzBokDXfi+SIMnfY8FIWvejZbD2pwcb9zdGx6u/dnpuUwVIb96R1nwuJ15FwPgbcKhv16NlQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9888:b029:dc:374:bc8b with SMTP id s8-20020a1709029888b02900dc0374bc8bmr2344785plp.60.1611608776213; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-35-22.volcanocom.com. [107.182.35.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 141sm17609907pfa.65.2021.01.25.13.06.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:15 -0800 (PST)
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Cc: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <34317129-8225-fb38-4ad3-e1b9ffed21fb@iecc.com> <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com> <df867378-5da0-b912-2a0f-b2081d1f2437@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kfCC1H89pRjgxXK=+BizJHFdKgnr7Gxh_2wWq8P7L-0Q@mail.gmail.com> <a94cb6c0-0a32-da8d-4bd5-9c7ab2866c82@mtcc.com> <CAH48ZfxkQ9g-gmBOPdDsxr4RDvXOi56EaX=aJVDbuL_g7kR+xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfOB93fpYRjwxgQNkG-ydVHLtvgUp0LLROvv-F-amJVy4w@mail.gmail.com> <b9e8da8e-f46a-49c0-4196-1d50ed94d526@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfPh4kYq0yXhtP9BaPmtP_rc7L-0f=r3Ff_P3oxrhYqvtw@mail.gmail.com> <fd74120f-bfad-ef51-64d7-2f8ec4f00fab@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwaPmMGR48EUhNkmZTozjoiTMnC6Rfmjdo9vLYD6ZhNoAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfMcQ3HCrQAgKWeK-n2Acf+COK+E3HuCauh8g44KiWj=ng@mail.gmail.com> <25ea488b-e432-75c4-c57a-01d03308208c@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfP5n15=Ez6_SFmkyDOyF=mpD8npZJmJujKP1vw322fGLg@mail.gmail.com> <2f73843f-eaec-5bb7-c59c-08ff387418e3@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfMBwuXEyxnCgObChb_irCME9w=5ZjedjdSz=0qzFj6uVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <67e052b6-2556-2ded-6995-60ddbac28094@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:06:14 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMBwuXEyxnCgObChb_irCME9w=5ZjedjdSz=0qzFj6uVw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D769A999B39C69C518B2AAD6"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bNHImrPlmyN_t-f2RgKqRrs3DhM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] reporting security requirements
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:06:18 -0000

On 1/25/21 12:47 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Entire sections of the document are devoted to preventing reporting 
> abuse. Of course reviewing the security recommendations are part of 
> the process of going standards track which we’ll be undertaking.

As I said, it doesn't appear that there is a whole lot of agreement of 
what the requirements are. Getting a DISCUSS from a security AD is not 
usually the best time to deal with security issues.

Mike


>
> If there are seeing specific operational issues that you believe 
> require clarification in the document, please speak up.
>
> Back to open tickets, please.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:41 Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 1/25/21 10:02 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
>     > Michael, are you aware of anyone not following the guidance in the
>     > document? This thread feels like we're discussing a non-issue.
>     > Aggregate reports are already required to be authenticated and I'm
>     > unaware of anyone sending failure reports, let along
>     unauthenticated
>     > ones. Is the language causing problems? Such problems have not been
>     > brought to the list, and would be a good place to start if you
>     want to
>     > build consensus.
>
>      From the looks of it, it doesn't seem like the security
>     requirements of
>     reporting was ever undertaken. There seems to be a wide range of
>     disagreement even if there was given the thread from which this came.
>      From there is actually text, to don't know if it's an issue, to
>     there
>     hasn't been a problem before (as if that were some sort of
>     barometer),
>     to authentication might inconvenience google, to contradicting your
>     assertion that authentication in the way you mentioned can be done.
>     Since this is going to proposed standard from informational, that
>     is not
>     a very good state of affairs, IMO.
>
>     Mike
>
>
> -- 
> *Seth Blank*| VP, Standards and New Technologies
> *e:*seth@valimail.com <mailto:seth@valimail.com>
> *p:*415.273.8818
>
>
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential 
> and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of 
> individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and 
> authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, 
> copying or distribution of the information included in this 
> transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately 
> notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from 
> your system.
>