ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP security relies upon the visual domain appearance

2005-11-17 18:49:23

On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Hector Santos wrote:

Doug,

It will be helpful to be distinctive and to distinguish which policies in
DKIM/SSP you are concern about:

All but Never and None. : )

Please don't misunderstand, DKIM offers a tremendous advantage, but reliance upon a domain being visually unique may have been considered okay a decade ago. The naive user requires greater assistance. Don't expect them to discern when they are seeing the pretty-name, various character set(s) declared from a RFC2047 format, a particular character-set derived from puny-code RFC3492, or perhaps worse, the puny-code itself. : 0

So it would be extremely helpful if you can describe the threats and impact per SSP in itemized format, without injecting a grandiose thesis alternative solution and preferably in the format described by Jim Fenton and Stephen
Farrell.

Do you understand the concern just expressed?

Here is some highlights for an alternative approach that does not expect the recipient to have such keen insight into the display mechanism employed by their application. Please note that with the DKIM base mechanism in place, these protections could be added immediately.

http://www.sonic.net/~dougotis/id/draft-otis-dkim- threats-01.html#anchor32
11.3 Opportunistic Protection without Domain-wide Policy Assertions

http://www.sonic.net/~dougotis/id/draft-otis-mass- reputation-03.html#anchor9
9. Binding Identifiers

-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>