Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Gmail comments on DMARCbis version 28

Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Thu, 14 September 2023 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@highwayman.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 3CE26C1522C6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=highwayman.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RqwFxbab3JJu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 18:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.highwayman.com (mail.highwayman.com [82.69.6.249]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83828C1519B6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 18:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=highwayman.com; s=rnc1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:To:Date:Message-ID:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=T3s6aJ99tgJb0zBvkaTW1dFuzgBqhZDssIPwnOjKi1U=; t=1694655112; x=1695519112; b=JcacJpN0FW00AH1qMBa/lYRgXI+bIsmKJ8h2tcLn8JLVCUhiBM/YqySMz07alb+YY/GpINzES1V djwcsHNEc4lr3XK0e8qGBwtA3xH5L7VoaaOyP4Omat8uie06O7tihp1s2MApQcTLgT7CYvC+ZkmSI jKmC9di9MW+UiBP7qr4Ujx2jJ1RpCjjcRPZ0N15pgvyWQ56xBWcG6FF7IkyTRdkC1LleAJf4Ag3C2 P4zzBSdIuHvpkj5Ijl7AGGArUxTKZJ6QZtXkZJga9rpSpHFwFlUItrZB3wjeECs3FaUWtkliZeOcx BAmWP4ZClubfPK19YAWmu/L4Iz1XtEYuMLNA==;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:14162 helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by mail.highwayman.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <richard@highwayman.com>) id 1qgbCx-0005xX-45 for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 01:31:51 +0000
Message-ID: <pyVZq2J7ImAlFA4e@highwayman.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 02:30:35 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>
References: <CAAFsWK1xtj0zCEG-77Ar8G83_F2uQpJPOA5SKzci7T5BHTnNWg@mail.gmail.com> <E4CC3450-EBA1-4945-9519-57F01C43A743@bluepopcorn.net> <CAH48Zfx28=XxfpanvAG=z+k1dg_TSpbkA8-ycPXxFDZ4RzK6cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdpOa+T6XkmL5=Z0HNkF0VmFOJXaKWFSie397uNg4x83Q@mail.gmail.com> <236E0D25-7B5D-4EC9-8F8E-E187DB318090@isdg.net> <CAH48ZfyQzzoKkefEm9M7AQfLAxM+WcanPrzB_xMxRMu-cZYwgQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfyQzzoKkefEm9M7AQfLAxM+WcanPrzB_xMxRMu-cZYwgQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <$a3$+$W377$9hMKLW2b+dunMDw>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/z_fwJcsuli88KjkXr0gdY5j4xEs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Gmail comments on DMARCbis version 28
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Sep 2023 01:31:58 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In message <CAH48ZfyQzzoKkefEm9M7AQfLAxM+WcanPrzB_xMxRMu-
cZYwgQ@mail.gmail.com>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.
com> writes

>    The coverage problem is aggravated if we assume rational attackers. 
>      With a plethora of domains available for impersonation, attackers 
>    are least likely to use domains that are protected with p=reject.

you have grasped it ... the rational attackers do not impersonate the
protected domains, and the irrational attackers are blocked when they
do; hence the domain is protected and users are not misled

>    Therefore the reference model implementation protects an evaluator 
>    where attacks are least likely, and fails to protect an evaluator 
>    where attacks are most likely.

however DMARC protects end users who might act on emails that were
spoofed to be from the domain that has been protected

Ian Levy (then of NCSC here in the UK) in "Active Cyber Defence - One
Year On" reported

     We have seen the number of messages spoofed from an @gov.uk address
     (for example, taxrefund@gov.uk) fall consistently over 2017,
     suggesting that criminals are moving away from using them as fewer
     and fewer of them are delivered to end users.

     Across the 555 public sector email domains reporting to Mail Check,
     we are seeing an average of 44.1 million messages a month which
     fail verification, with a peak of 78.8 million in June. Of those,
     an average of 4.5 million are not delivered to the end users. The
     peak in June saw 30.3 million spoofed messages not delivered to end
     users.

from which you will see that there are were a number of irrational
attackers, but that the rational ones now found their task harder

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBZQJiO92nQQHFxEViEQIQ/wCg3bMOOkwzlALOCiqSeyYat37sLPsAoMmY
PQmhq6x7U/NYsa9/qa0geqQO
=cwUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----