Re: [dmarc-ietf] Weakend Signatures vs Experimental draft
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 01 October 2020 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 1566A3A0B49 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 5fSBxBz8pgca for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 BFA993A0B48 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1601535602; bh=4oxSXQuFKjXmTSSF5vrllKAiwYjJkPff6pFfwFvuHco=; l=816; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AtYLIVtqFPTF5aSz4+RUkY2UpFY/39AAS57KWWAj8L/NVAZ2qQlt+iJio49Wgm80M vMVyWBqqRNoVNqusLUKdupxPOTdZesG5KxUsa3nvGRAK5pl+Yt1CV73AkYXQiL0wqK i5T+IkCOtMn7lKs/WVKmfELOFO2LeiWk5hV+Kd6Kg63Cmo0BxEX1Scb/1yy+X
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC08B.000000005F757E72.00002238; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 09:00:02 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <11b4d6127cd748afa47c75387ed85c04@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <1d365acc-0513-fe01-829f-9bc6356318f7@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 09:00:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11b4d6127cd748afa47c75387ed85c04@bayviewphysicians.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kuKAVu9p4z72KVWHoPEpWBQS5xo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Weakend Signatures vs Experimental draft
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: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 07:00:06 -0000
On Wed 30/Sep/2020 12:27:26 +0200 Douglas E. Foster wrote: > Weakened signatures seem capable of getting to the desired goal more quickly > than the draft under consideration. > > Building on prior discussions of conditional signatures, I define a "weakened > signature" as: > one where SUBJECT is omitted from the header list, and l=0 is included to > exclude the body content. The protected user-visible content becomes limited > to From, To, and Date headers. +1, I'd support adopting draft-levine-dkim-conditional or equivalent. I'd also support adopting some kind of DKIM Transformation. Note that the latter can be conceived as "not-so-strengthened signatures", in the sense that exotic fields (such as Sender:) are not signed. Similar benefits, less disadvantages. Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] Weakend Signatures vs Experimental d… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Weakend Signatures vs Experiment… Alessandro Vesely