Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #64 - Contained Data PII Concerns

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 1EB263A1EF2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:21:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 BsAiXBt7iqqG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (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 ADA893A1EF0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id a11so187380vsm.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:21:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=93Yr9LrWp5Tu0nCrh2WrLX027Igfk1sWQw+EEMVXo5E=; b=dItMsrrYRRaulZSiY5cpvOCxgUlvpCIX+p2j1mwnVzkbT/jxe92o7k2J6FcT+bau1W TwYF2Lq/n9MX2v/PY+Kk1QccyRQ6g+DDMAiKDAgSmt0ug+vDM8NmFEDaWNML6uKndY/V VLSBUYXxPS+pv+9zEtKZ0kGi1FpuefTTtKpg1CrvyB6dA2j8i+EE6mPvFOumjKY35hbt pnJJ7HLVwnGMoCNoOuv07SBTy9CXtcUXRaE4FkY8bbgJA+wCJbZYx/foXV5h1EQBqAwX tFEBx8yvkYOm1fuLAK2jU9tsLOCrAP2RE39wlOdM0FlaseLcV0Pxd5qZXnbNeq4HteaN 60bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=93Yr9LrWp5Tu0nCrh2WrLX027Igfk1sWQw+EEMVXo5E=; b=Wnmvjbfl4YT1JXmvn2adausYR5QElTnEbafRBvGA6KrLeQvGZ5rGsflYfVwXlxhJYf dmJsX1SkHBucig0DUgYb90icE4arN7ZjfNMjP85nIPMEN/3vYiGxHUQZocgOdzDIYhE4 7/E7BKsPhbRGtU0J5bfWVmJ+jjRMWhdhmznEM0A+qQR/+FB8TMagjOTcjVx1bEiO/ivM qMmnxnACs4bo11UZw7DD5DJJaTnjyg3vibjXIiaxkNseSkM6zmLuJUG+gltvZP7L0mhm B4M9qzsrljo42e3W8ezFmyAYD52paHMOxirwDLdQGrzNjQX3fLfdzSaxoRnGtwsmfIOX eK1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530t0cjVl5yHJ/0+EiOflmktiFQz2xj5go7DKq0tg72iSZRZDqyn 8OBITzhLCGQpRX+k0ylHtytRV8QmxJvmyI14WpFf8tyT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJ05kAuX5cmkRRVQGG9iJqfSJ+xDI++lH2cVfm+5nW45OvUfNtbimio1Ij6+UsmrUFKNWkF/LtkKDPh9IJ3gI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ad06:: with SMTP id t6mr1440158vsl.59.1613614886409; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:21:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB435185A171029EF4282A2BF4F78B9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7086a5e4-2a9c-bbdc-1969-f77d0d00fa38@tana.it> <MN2PR11MB435129E4F5DA8C8EC141E9E9F7869@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <VI1PR01MB70538541D7ADE18A555B05D6C7869@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR01MB70538541D7ADE18A555B05D6C7869@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:21:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48Zfy6oqHE8WfyOv2j57d-VhFXYBVqq_zvTTQtTnpCxo6V+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001bd8cd05bb92fe73"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rt3hQGAsKAJo3eKGlGIqQej4cDE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #64 - Contained Data PII Concerns
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, 18 Feb 2021 02:21:30 -0000

It would help me if you could elaborate on the concerns that you have
encountered.

Which data is sensitive and therefore needing classification?

Which roles creates the objection?   Server owner sending reports,
recipient domain allowing the server owner to send reports from recipient
data, or only report recipient?

When the report recipient domain delegates reception to an authorized
agent, how does the organization making the delegation escape liability for
how the information is handled and used?


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ken O'Driscoll <ken=
40wemonitoremail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
> I PM deployments for organisations and the concept of aggregate reports
> have caused problem more than once. Similar to the PII concerns of
> providers which originated this ticket, these organisations operate in
> heavily a regulated industry and have extensive DPO functions. To give a
> flavour of what those concerns translate to - I have been asked is it
> possible to implement DMARC without using reports! I have also had
> con-calls about training a new hire to read and classify the reports!
> That's just two examples. It's mostly driven by overzealous DPOs but I
> understand their concerns on some level. When they realise that we can
> distil the report data and it doesn't need to be on-site, they hand wave
> away any custodian concerns and the project moves forward.
>
> So, assuming that my DMARC clients aren't unique, I'm wondering if this
> section could be split into two parts, one for Mail Receivers and one for
> Domain Owners?
>
> If so, for Domain Owners, I'd propose something like this:
>
> Aggregate feedback reports are essential for the proper implementation and
> operation of DMARC. Domain Owners can choose to exclusively direct reports
> to a processor external to their organization. In such cases, the content
> of the reports are never sent directly to the Domain Owner.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ken.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brotman, Alex
> > Sent: Wednesday 17 February 2021 18:40
> > To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>it>; dmarc@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #64 - Contained Data PII Concerns
> >
> > Incorporating some feedback:
> >
> > -------------------
> > ## Data Contained Within Reports (Tkt64)
> >
> > Within the reports is contained an aggregated body of anonymized data
> > pertaining to the sending domain.  The data is meant to aid the report
> > processors and domain holders in verifying sources of messages
> > pertaining to the DMARC Identifier.  The data should not contain any
> > identifying characteristics about individual senders or receivers.  An
> > entity sending reports should not be concerned with the data contained
> > as it does not contain personal information, such as email addresses or
> > usernames. There are typically three situations where data is reported
> > to the aggregate receivers: messages properly authenticated, messages
> > that fail to authenticate as the domain, or messages utilizing the DMARC
> > Identifier that have no authentication at all.  In each of these cases,
> > there exists no identifying information for individuals, and all content
> > within the reports should be related to SMTP servers sending messages
> > posing as that domain.
> > -------------------
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alex Brotman
> > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> > > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 8:31 AM
> > > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #64 - Contained Data PII Concerns
> > >
> > > On Fri 12/Feb/2021 21:30:38 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> > > > Hello folks,
> > > >
> > > > In ticket #64
> > >
> > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/64_
> > _;!
> > > !CQl3mcHX2A!W97hZ0-
> > > iwRDi8wBssmRFF6OycVE12vM3xhGd9BmLhEzi6Vycp3bgzwji21xLQQgnnMRa
> > > BuxGQg$ ), it was suggested that a Privacy Considerations section may
> > > alleviate some concerns about the ownership of the data.  I created an
> > > initial attempt, and thought to get some feedback.  I didn't think we
> > > should go too far in depth, or raise corner cases.  Felt like doing so
> > > could lead down a rabbit hole of trying to cover all cases. This would
> > > go within a "Privacy Considerations" section.
> > > >
> > > > * Data Contained Within Reports (#64)
> > > >
> > > > Within the reports is contained an aggregated body of anonymized
> > > > data pertaining to the sending domain.  The data is meant to aid the
> > > > report processors and domain holders in verifying sources of
> > > > messages pertaining to the 5322.From Domain.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd replace all those 5322.From Domain with main DMARC identifier.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The data should not contain any identifying characteristics about
> > > > individual senders or receivers.
> > >
> > >
> > > The aggregated data refers to names and IP addresses of SMTP servers.
> > > It cannot be used to identify individual users.
> > >
> > >
> > > >  An entity
> > > > sending reports should not be concerned with the data contained as
> > > > it should not contain PII (NIST reference for PII definition), such
> > > > as email
> > > addresses or
> > > > usernames.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd substitute /should not/does not/.  Even if a server has a unique
> > > user, the domain name and the IP address are those of a public entity,
> > > not those of a private citizen.
> > >
> > > The term Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is US-national.  I
> > > think just personal information is of broader use.  Personal data is
> > > also a valid alternative.
> > >
> > >
> > > jm2c
> > > Ale
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dmarc mailing list
> > > dmarc@ietf.org
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmar
> > > c
> > > __;!!CQl3mcHX2A!W97hZ0-
> > > iwRDi8wBssmRFF6OycVE12vM3xhGd9BmLhEzi6Vycp3bgzwji21xLQQgnnMTF6
> > > fzPKA$
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>