Re: [ietf-822] one can re-sign without a permission to re-sign header

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 02 May 2014 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F56C1A6F84 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.873
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 hA6raOSkyOlT for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 05:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4085D1A081E for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2014 05:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1399034894; bh=Vv6XwfzJ9Lv1TKtY2cQflxtTR8zT9sLTpo0Q+wkpqyM=; l=1266; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=NSSaK6YbrjMh9oQsrsoo5DZovC27B19kcMxx8Am6M2DjSMLoyK/djnVi54+QfANSl U5j5VIhSPoZJwFPZORosycp2Vr/ZUPYi1AA//TgU5gXmeFQzi+kCTsIhYszLMpxvjB /5NY9kxfqfic90J5yrv+kuN+yT47yGM4IFQqbGY0=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Fri, 02 May 2014 14:48:14 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000005363940E.00001087
Message-ID: <5363940E.2010600@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 14:48:14 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <20140501195449.68225.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20140501195449.68225.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/FhSEWf8b2uDbu-PfEi4TL0ZDOPY
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] one can re-sign without a permission to re-sign header
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 12:48:21 -0000

On Thu 01/May/2014 21:54:49 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> 
>>> Perhaps it's time for a more concrete proposal to be written down.
> 
> It occurred to me that there's a very simple way to do this:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-may-forward/

Nice one, John!  However, the Security Considerations call for a major
addition, IMHO.  In what cases would a signer add an mf=, weak signature?

*Always* introduces a real security risk, unless all assessors are
modified so as to check the sender is a valid mailing list.  I think
many sites accept DKIM signatures as authentication, so putting a
negligible mf=y on a blank signature creates an attack vector for
phishing.  Of course, domains like PayPal.com will never produce such
signatures.  If Yahoo! do them, however, they'll loose whatever they
gained by letting p=reject.

*ML only* puts the burden of determining whether an entity is a
mailing list on the signer, rather than leaving it to the assessor.
Sites who trust their users have an advantage here; Yahoo! remains in
a questionable position.

Wouldn't it be more direct, albeit more demanding, to propose a
standard for mailing lists?  Such document would also tell how to
discover them, and how to subscribe, and...

Ale