-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:59 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
Well a broken signature is morally equivalent to unsigned so Im not
sure
of the potential harm...
And this is where I angst. In all the discussions of a broken signature
being morally equivalent to unsigned, the thrust has been that it was
likely broken in transit. We failed to have the discussion of it being
intentionally broken in transit as an attempt to game the system. For
header mutations after signing (which are likely to be a malicious
attempt in the specific cases we have been discussing) I feel that
treating it as simply the same as unsigned is ignoring the potential
maliciousness.
I recognize what Murray and Dave have said on this point but it grates.
The reason we are going through the exercise of creating a stable
identifier associated with a signing domain is because we perceive some
value whether it be policy associated with the stable identifier or
reputation associated with the stable identifier.
To simply ignore this and say it is the same as if it wasn't signed is
kind of like saying 0=1.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html