Re: [ietf-822] A permission to re-sign header

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 19 April 2014 09:39 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 82D061A00B5 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.694 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 Hm6yoCtG1MeW for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135C71A001B for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1397900360; bh=8VrQ61GWIq11hbqkq1+ii6FilVdG8ynRbzaa00i/e6k=; l=1095; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=jGaUM+hbD+9bTZ82pxAD2bjR6Iv9XsRCcVCa+eaiWlXw+1exDDnQkgtv1/JZZQIdV FmvbtJp52tKPWI1uoEx5oqwl5XyQb6EcKqvaMXyQpc0+CRSsVXFZJydXnQcjABKupD 9NqMTTUatD8sjXFA0IyszMajDPsU3c7v/gyp+dmQ=
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; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:39:20 +0200 id 00000000005DC03F.0000000053524448.00002DD0
Message-ID: <53524448.2010509@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:39:20 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <20140418123721.3610.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20140418123721.3610.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/asJB7CZr18RsTCfN1lS_g_QyTtw
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] 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: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:39:30 -0000

On Fri 18/Apr/2014 14:37:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
>> Even with the local part (marissam) an M-R is not really hard to
>> forge, otherwise DKIM-Signature wouldn't have had to include all the
>> other tags.  If we worry about replay attacks, we can enhance M-R so
>> that it includes them too.  For example, we could make M-R exactly
>> like a regular DKIM-Signature, except that it would be a very very
>> weak one, something that the MLM won't break.
> 
> BTDT.  If we could invent a weak signature that the MLM won't break,
> we wouldn't have this problem.  The M-R token is signed so it should
> be impossible to forge, and we don't expect anyone to change it in
> transit.

I reckon M-R is equivalent to a DKIM-Signature having h=From:To; l=0;
assuming "From: marissam@yahoo.com" and "To: r=ietf.org".  Correct?

The equivalent signature is even weaker than it needs to.  IME, the
only problem is that some sites (e.g. netease) have a local policy
whereby they discard weak signatures.  (Their DMARC reports say
"DKIM-Signature could not parse or has bad tags/values".)

Ale