]> Google, Inc.

weihaw@google.com

Fastmail Pty Ltd

brong@fastmailteam.com

Independent Stream DKIM ARC Replay DKIM (RFC6376) is an IETF standard for the cryptographic protocol to authenticate email at the domain level and protect the integrity of messages during transit. Section 8.6 defines a vulnerability called DKIM Replay as a spam message sent through a SMTP MTA DKIM signer, that then is sent to many more recipients, leveraging the reputation of the signer. We propose a replay resistant cryptographic based protocol that discloses all SMTP recipients and signs them, allowing a receiver or any third party to verify that the message went to the intended recipient. If not then then potentially the message is replayed. Moreover it leverages ARC (RFC8617) and sender defined forwarding path to build a "chain of custody" that accurately defines the SMTP forwarding path of the message. This also allows the protocol to detect DKIM and ARC replay attacks and other attacks.

Introduction This protocol provides a technique to authenticate email by domain that is replay resistant. It leverages the features of ARC to name ADMD in the email forwarding path and to publish the intermediate results. It then discloses all SMTP recipients as signed RFC822 headers by the sender which allows a receiver to verify if the mail was directed to the appropriate recipient. The results MAY be used by spam filtering to apply some local policy, and/or applied to DMARC policy evaluation as one of its input email authenticators. Existing email authentication techniques have known limitations. DKIM suffers from being vulnerable to replay attacks as described in draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem. Spammers utilize an account on a sender that supports signing with DKIM to capture a spammy message with a valid DKIM signature. The spam is then broadcast to many victim recipients. Because ARC is based on DKIM signing, ARC is similarly vulnerable to replay. The broader goals of this internet-draft are outlined here:

• Any party can independently verify that a message traveled along a path as intended by the originator (original sender) to the receiver (last receiver). This prevents DKIM and ARC replay attacks, and SPF shared tenancy attacks.
• Receivers can determine if the message was modified along the path and by whom.
• Be able to tolerate parties not participating in the new protocol. Make sure to have reasonable partial failure modes for non-participating parties including incentives to encourage future participation.

Terminology and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in .

Definitions SMTP transport and particular email senders and receivers are defined in . Email payload and headers are defined in . This document uses email flow definitions, which describes the interactions between the parties in sending email. In particular these parties assist the email senders and receivers in email transport. draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem adds context to those mailflows for the DKIM replay problem.

Acronyms

ADMD:

ADministrative Management Domain is defined as and represents the independent operational scope authorship, handling, and receiving.

ARC:

Authenticated Received Chain - is a protocol that is meant to resolve some of the issues for DMARC to fix the problems that DMARC policy rejects caused by mail forwarding. ARC uses a digital signing mechanism derived from DKIM to protect the integrity of the Authentication-Results of a forwarder and a versioning mechanism to describe the forwarders. ARC suffers from similar replay issues as DKIM.

Authentication-Results:

A header containing a list of email authentication validation methods, results and comments as specified in .

DKIM:

DomainKeys Identified Mail standard for the cryptographic protocol to authenticate email at the domain level and protect the integrity of messages during transit.

DKIM replay

As defined in section 8.6- a vulnerability called DKIM Replay as a spam message sent through a SMTP MTA DKIM signer, that then is sent to many more recipients, leveraging the reputation of the signer.

DMARC:

Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance - defines a sender defined message handling policy for spoofed messages to be applied when a message is delivered at some receiving SMTP server.

MDA

Message Delivery Agent defined in .

MSA

Message Submission Agent defined in .

MTA

Message Transfer Agent defined in .

SPF:

Sender Policy Framework standard for authenticating sending servers typically based on IP address.

Defining and Propagating Sender Identity in Mail Flow This section outlines how ARC and DKIM are used by the email authentication methods defined in this document, though several details are left for later sections. This protocol leverages ARC and DKIM for declaring protocol settings and protecting the integrity of the headers and message body, and ARC for propagating authentication results. At message origination, this uses DKIM-Signature tag/values for declaring settings and optionally ARC-Seal tag/values instead. For message forwarding, this uses ARC-Seal tag/values for declaring settings. After the email receiver evaluates the email authentication results, these results are published and propagated to the subsequent receivers via ARC-Authentication-Results. This protocol updates ARC-Authentication-Results with new method status, properties and comments as defined in . This protocol identifies and names the ADMDs by the signer domain as defined in the DKIM-Signature "d=" or ARC-Seal "d=". The traversed MAIL FLOW forwarding path is defined as a vector of these domains, and is further defined in . This specification mandates that the ADMDs participating in this protocol explicitly identify themselves with a DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal tags "dara" or "darn". At the originating sender, participants MAY declare participation with a tag in the DKIM-Signature if the recipient declaration and signing as described later is covered by To and Cc, otherwise they MUST declare with a tag in the ARC-Seal. Later this document will describe when to use Forwarded-to header which is protected by the ARC-Seal. Additionally if the message is forwarded, participation MUST be declared in a tag in the ARC-Seal. Participants will declare an identified path of ADMD nodes from the originating sender ADMD to the receiving ADMD with the "dara" tag. If the message exits the identified path into some naive, protocol unaware ADMD the aware ADMD denotes this using the "darn" tag, allowing for mitigations for this scenario. The tags and their use are further specified in . At the MSA ADMD, i.e. the responsible originating sender, this protocol REQUIRES that the From header domain MUST align with DKIM-Signature "d=" domain or ARC-Seal "d= domain. This alignment ties the originating sender's identity to the cryptographic signer, and allows any receiver or third party to discover who the originating sender is. If the originating sender performs ARC signing, the ARC the ARC-Authentication-Results MUST be empty. Some forwarders such as mailing-lists modify the From header that hinder originating sender discovery. Receiver MAY apply methods to recover the originating sender's From header by using methods such as draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications. When the message is delivered to the inbox by the MDA, it MAY strip the ARC-Seal and ARC-Message-Signature but leave behind the ARC-Authentication-Result. Partially stripping the ARC set makes termination identifiable and more difficult to replay as signatures are missing. A message lacking ARC-Seals and ARC-Message-Signatures but containing ARC-Authentication-Result has been delivered to the inbox. Seeing such a message in delivery may be replayed and is denoted by an ARC verification fail status. This protocol protects against malicious use of these ARC headers by REQUIRING message signing and verification between ADMDs. In addition there MAY be ARC signing and verification internal to the ADMD. Having this outbound message body signing invariant permits the receiver to verify the integrity of the message as sent by the prior ADMD. To verify the integrity of the ARC sets then, a receiver MUST verify the previous ARC set's ARC-Message-Signature and verify each ARC set's ARC-Seal signature from "i=N" (receiver's ARC set number) to "i=1" (originating sender or first forwarder) as well as the presence of all headers in the ARC set as defined in . If the receiver sees a verification failure from the immediate sender's "i=N-1" ARC-Message-Signature, this MUST result in an ARC verification fail status. ARC-Message-Signature verification failures from "i=N-2" to "i=1" are tolerated, meaning their failure does not indicate a failing ARC result e.g. mailing-list modification. All ARC-Seal verification failures from "i=N-1" to "i=1" are treated as ARC verification fail status. The result of the verification is published in the Authentication-Result and the ARC-Authentication-Result with a tag "arc=". Even if the receiver notes that a prior receiver publishes a ARC verification fails, this specification asks the receiver to continue ARC generation and verification to provide forensics evidence via the ARC-Authentication-Results. For example the SPF authentication results of the potentially malicious sender MAY help identify that sender to some subsequent receiver. The propagated ARC verification failure will help prevent inadvertent use of the authentication results by subsequent receivers.

Declare All Recipients and Affirm (DARA)

Concepts This email authentication protocol uses validating signed headers against the envelope headers. It features a looks up mechanism to support forwarders that are unaware of the protocol. Also it publishes enough information for a third party to independently validate the results given by SMTP sender and receiver.

Declaring All Recipients The specified email authentication protocol is resistant against replay attacks by explicitly identifying all recipients in the headers, including when the recipient is "hidden" such as Bcc: or Mailing-lists. That way when a signed message arrives, the receiver can check if the RCPT TO recipient correctly is a subset of the recipient in the signed message header. If not, then the message MAY be part of a replay attack. When To: and Cc: recipients are declared by their headers, they MUST be specified in the "h=" header list and signed by DKIM-Signature or ARC-Message-Signature. For blind carbon copy, while a Bcc: header might be added, it can be stripped by subsequent forwarders. Instead we create a new _Forwarded-to: _ header that includes an ARC set versioning number to indicate which ADMD sent the message to a new recipient. It MAY include one or more comma separated recipients. Whitespaces in the recipient list are ignored. As part of the DARA protocol, recipients not declared by To: or Cc: MUST be declared with the Forwarded-to: header. This supports the email forwarder and mailing list scenario where we also use the Forwarded-to header to indicate that a message is sent to a new recipient. Forwarded-to: _MUST be propagated by forwarders unmodified. For the privacy of "hidden" recipients and to prevent their identity from being visible to other recipients via the _Forwarded-to: header, the message MUST be split and signed exclusively for each Forwarded-to: recipient. This means the header is visible only to that recipient. Messages sent to a new ADMD but with the same recipient identity disclosed by a prior Forwarded-to MAY elect to optimize header space by skipping adding a redundant Forwarded-to header. To protect the integrity of the Forwarded-to: header, they MUST be hashed and signed by ARC-Seal as follows: Collect all Forwarded-to: headers and hash them following the header processing algorithm in RFC6376 section 5.4. This hash is published in the ARC-Message-Signature header as "fh=" tag and base64 hash value. DARA aware verifiers can recompute the hash and check it against the hash contained in the "fh=" tag to verify the integrity of the Forwarded-to: headers. For example:

Protocol Awareness Senders and receivers MAY variously support the DARA protocol or not, so the protocol needs to be tolerant of ADMDs that don't support the protocol. For example a naive mailing list sender sending to a protocol aware receiver SHOULD NOT have traffic rejected simply because it didn't follow the protocol. Yet simultaneously, the DARA protocol needs to discourage abuse by spammers seeking to use the naive ADMD path for replay. The protocol calls for the DARA aware senders to lookup the capability of the receiver in supporting DARA and disclose that capability in the message. All ADMD supporting the DARA protocol SHOULD publish a DNS TXT policy record. The DARA aware sender SHOULD look up the receiver's policy record as described next or look up an internal list of receivers that support DARA. The following paragraph describes the DARA DNS policy record and disclosure statement, and the following paragraph describes when the ADMD does not support DARA. When the ADMD indicates it supports DARA via DNS, the ADMD publishes a DNS TXT policy record at the supported domain name, prepended with a "_dara" label. The format of the policy record are tag/values in form of the textual representation in RFC6376 section 3.2. The policy record MUST start with a DARA version tag "v=" with a DARA version number that MUST be set to "DARA_1.0". The lookup also discovers the destination domain name, and that destination domain MUST match the ADMD's ARC-Seal "d=" signing domain which enables tracing this domain From sender to receiver as described later. The signing domain name is specified by the tag "dara=" with value being that domain name. The "dara=" signing domain enables an Email Service Provider (ESP) to forward mail on behalf of someone else. Once discovered, this domain is copied to "dara=<domain>" domain that is then placed in the sender's DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal. The "dara=" tag/value indicates support by the receiver for the DARA as well as the identity of the intended receiver signing domain. The following is an example of a DARA DNS policy record for example.org that normalizes to example.com. The TXT record is published at _dara.example.org and contains: If no such DNS TXT policy record is found or not in the list of supported domains, then the receiver does not support the DARA protocol. This is indicated by the tag "darn=" with the receiving domain as the value. This is placed in the sender's DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal. The "darn=" tag indicates to subsequent DARA aware receivers that there was an intermediate naive forwarder. Also, when there is spam, instead of penalizing the sender that is DARA aware, the receiver MAY elect to apply the reputation penalty to the receiving domain that is naive to DARA. A DARA aware receiver MAY elect to check the sender's policy if it suspects that a malicious forwarder was acting as a Man-In-The-Middle and has stripped off some prior sender's DARA policy. If it detects a DARA declaration in the sender's DNS policy, but not declared in the message, the receiver MAY elect to treat the message as spam.

Receiver Verification A DARA aware receiver looks in the message to determine how to do DARA validation. First it looks for the most recent ARC-Seal (if present) using the ARC set number to determine recency. If not present then it looks for a DKIM-Signature. When found, a DARA aware receiver verifies the integrity of the header, then looks for a DARA tag/values and these are interpreted as follows. If the tag is "dara=", then the receiver MUST validate the recipients, and if it fails verification, treat the message as DARA unauthenticated with the implication that the message might be replayed. The recipient verification process for a given forwarder is to collect all the recipients in the To, Cc and prior Forwarded-to headers. In particular, for a forwarder i=n, the verifier collects all Forwarded-to headers from i=1 to i=n-1. It verifies that they are signed appropriately and if not fails the verification. The verifier checks that the To and Cc headers are present in the sender's DKIM-Signature or ARC-Message-Signature "h=" header list, and signed. Next it checks the integrity of the Forwarded-to headers by validating the "fh=" hash. The receiver collects all Forwarded-to: headers and hash them following the header processing algorithm in RFC6376 section 5.4, then checks the hash against the value associated with the "fh=" tag. If this mismatches, this is treated as failing verification. Assuming headers integrity, the receiver then collects all the RCPT TO recipients as the envelope recipients. The receiver then verifies that the envelope recipients are a subset of the signed headers. If not a subset, this too is treated as failing verification. As with other email authentication methods, the receiver's verifier is free to apply a locally defined policy against unauthenticated email. Next if the sender's tag is "dara=", the verifier SHOULD treat validation success as pass, and validation failure as fail. If the sender' tag is "darn=", the verifier SHOULD treat recipient verification failure as neutral and SHOULD treat success as pass. This discretionary validation mode is to support the scenario of DARA unaware ADMDs that may cause false positive validation failures. The domain value associated with the "darn=" tag helps identify the naive ADMD in processing local policy. After the receiver's verifier applies the "dara=" or "darn=" policy as described above, the result of this verification MUST be published in the ARC-Authentication-Results. The verifier describes the result with method "dara", and a result value of pass, fail or neutral. Receivers MUST declare the RCPT TO identity of that the message was received as a property header.i=<recipient email address>. This is to enable 3rd party mail flow validation as will be described shortly. For example the ARC-Authentication-Result could look like: ARC-Authentication-Result: i=2; dara=pass header.i=user@example.com

3rd Party Verification A third party verifier MUST be able to verify that DARA results from the sender and receiver using only values in the message headers and DNS. First the verifier identifies the sender and receiver. The sender may be identified by ARC-Seal with an ARC set number preceding the receiver or DKIM-Signature if no prior ARC-Seal is discovered. The sender's "dara=" or "darn=" policy declaration in the ARC-Seal or DKIM-Signature. The receiver's results will be found in the ARC-Authentication-Results. For both the sender and receiver, the integrity of the headers are checked i.e. checking the ARC-Seal and then the "fh=" hash. If it passes, then verifier determines the sender's declaration of the receiver's DARA support, by looking for "dara=" tag in the DKIM-Signature or ARC-Message-Signature. The value of the "dara=" domain MUST match the receiver's ARC-Seal's "d=" domain, and the receiver's ARC seal MUST verify. The 3rd party verifier SHOULD also check to see if the ARC-Authentication-Result "header.i=" is a subset of the declared and signed header so far. If these step pass, the 3rd party verification passes. If verification at any individual fails, the 3rd party verification fails. The above procedure can later be used by the Chain verification algorithm in to construct verification across multiple senders and receivers in the mail flow.

Definitions DNS TXT Policy tag/values

• "v=": Value of "DARA_1.0" if the ADMD supports the DARA verification protocol.
• "dara=": Value of the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain

DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal tags/values

• "dara=": Value of the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain when the receiver is DARA capable as found from the DARA DNS policy record.
• "darn=": Value of RFC822 recipient's domain name when the receiver is naive of DARA.

ARC-Authentication-Results method

• "dara=": Value of pass if recipient validation passes, otherwise fail. In some circumstances this tag/value may be unset or be treated as neutral.

Examples

Originator ==> Mailing-List ==> Receiver Originator outbound Mailing-List inbound (after ARC seal) Mailing-List outbound (after ARC reseal) Receiver inbound (after ARC seal)

Originator ==> First Receiver; Replay ==> Victim Receiver Originator outbound (after ARC seal) First receiver inbound (after ARC seal) Above message captured by spammer, modified (add additional headers) and then resent. A spammer might send the message to john.doe@victim.example.net which would be unspecified in the headers. Victim (last) receiver inbound (after ARC seal)

Originator ==> Naive-Forwarder ==> Receiver This describes a message sent through Bcc to a forwarder that does not support DARA. First outbound (after ARC seal) The naive forwarder changes the recipient address from user@naive.example.com to user@aware.example.com, and the envelope recipient will change accordingly. aware.example.com supports DARA. Final inbound (after ARC seal). At receiver, the declared and signed recipient user@naive.example.com will mismatch the envelope recipient user@aware.example.com, and fail DARA. However the protocol is set to optional verification with "darn=", and so does not report the failure. The domain specified naive.example.com by "darn=" may be useful by spam filters at the receiver. For example the SPF HELO domain may match the "darn=" domain.

Chain of Custody The local results of DARA can be combined into a path of verified ADMD domains from the originating sender to the receiver. As noted earlier, the ADMD are defined by the ARC-Seal "d=" domains with FROM header alignment ADMD as the originating sender. The sender-defined receivers are described by the "dara=" tag at the sender containing the receiving domains and create sender-receiver pairs or metaphorical link in a chain. The originating sender defines the provenance of the message and the connected pairs create a "Chain of Custody" of the message. Chain building and verification can help detect if replay potentially occurred when there is a verification error. More specifically, a validation error can indicate there is a protocol unaware forwarder, or there is a malicious sender attempting to take the message and reinject it along a new path outside the intent of the originating sender. The verifier can check the prior sender's DARA declaration of "darn=" vs "dara=" to determine whether the unaware but benign scenario applies, or the aware sender but malicious scenario applies. If the malicious scenario, then it is up to the receiver's local policy to determine what receiver does with the result. The protocol for this verification is described in more detail in subsequent paragraphs. The verified path that the message traverses can be used as the message flow identifier in a reputation system. Unlike purely domain based reputation systems, a path based one can help differentiate benign message flows from malicious ones to help identify replay or other abuse by identifying the spammer forwarding malicious content.

Chain Building Algorithm The following defines an algorithm for path building using DARA identifiers. We define the nodes of a path as the ARC-Seal "d=" identities and whose edges are sender-receiver pairs. Because building the edges of a path is a repeated process across edges that are like links, we call this Chain of Custody building or Chaining for short. It starts at the destination at ARC set "i=N", and walks through the ARC headers to the originating sender's ARC set "i=1" or the DKIM-Signature. The edge is defined as a pair of nodes (d_n-1 , d_n) where the sender's ARC instance number "i=n-1" and receiver's "i=n". Further "d_n-1=" is the sender's ARC-Seal "d=" domain, and "d_n=" is the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain. Next the sender's "dara=" domain d_n and the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain d'_N MUST match. If so, edge building considers this a local pass. If the "dara=" result is missing, the verifier checks if there is instead a corresponding "darn=" tag at this or prior ARC set, then specifies an edge result of neutral, otherwise as fail. This recursively is extended for (d_N-2 , d_N-1) i.e. for ARC set "i=n-2" and so forth for each n instance number to 1. At instance number 1, the verifier attempts to extend to a DKIM-Signature that is From header aligned and contains a "dara=" tag. If so, the DKIM-Signature is treated as a virtual "i=0", and the verifier checks if the DKIM-Signature "dara=" domain matches the ARC-Seal i=1 "d=" domain. Local Chain verifier is done for each ARC set n following the above edge building from "i=N" to "i=1" and builds two vectors. One vector keeps the local chain results and the other ARC-Seal "d=" domains. The verifier assumes that results from ARC header and message-body signature verification, DARA verifications have already run and the results already populate the ARC-Authentication-Results. For ARC set "i=N" to ARC set "i=2", the verifier MUST evaluate the local result, meaning the ARC result (i.e. from ARC seal verification and sometime ARC message-signature verification), edge building result, and DARA verification result. If it passes, the local Chain result is pass. Otherwise if any of them are neutral is softfail, and the rest pass, the result is neutral. Otherwise the result is failure. Further local policy MAY modify the ARC message-signature result (perhaps due to future work around draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform or draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications) We recommend with the Chaining protocol to continue verification even if the sender's Chain result is failure or neutral, to provide forensics evidence for subsequent receivers. Receivers SHOULD independently determine if the DARA header.i recipients from the ARC-Authentication-Result header is a subset of the declared and signed recipients. At the originating sender's ARC set "i=1" corresponding to d₁ or DKIM-Signature corresponding to d₀ the verifier first verifies alignment between header From domain and the ARC-Seal "dara=" domain. That domain defines d₁ or d₀ and the verifier looks up the DARA policy associated with the domain which MUST exist. If they are not aligned, then the local Chain verification is considered neutral as the message may have been forwarded from some unaware domain. In addition the ARC seal validation for origination MUST pass or local Chain verification is considered fail. Once these checks pass, then Chain building for "i=1" is considered to pass. The local Chain results is added onto the result vector at that index for all indexes, and similarly the ARC-Seal "d=" domain onto the domain vector. To compute the global Chain result, the verifier walks over the vector of results. The global Chain result is initialized to pass. Starting from "i=N" index to "i=1", if the local result is fail then the global result is fail, else if local result is neutral then the global is neutral. If the local result is fail, then the domain result is cleared from that index to i=1. This will inserts a failure indication e.g. "arc-fail" at that index. If there are multiple failures, this chooses the most specific error as the cause e.g "dara-fail" over "arc-fail". This then truncates cleared domain entries from the domain list. If the local result is fail, this walk halts. If the local result is neutral, and there is a "darn=" then this inserts the domain in the domain list after the current index which helps identify it in the constructed path. A synthetic neutral _result is also inserted in the result path. This also similarly extends the path when "i=1" and the message doesn't originate at that domain (missing alignment between the _From header domain and ARC-Seal "d=" domain) to better identify the flow. The global Chain result is published ARC-Authentication-Results as a "chain=". If the result is pass, then the message is considered to be authenticated by DARA, otherwise unauthenticated.

Modified Body Algorithm The protocol can detect when a message is modified along the forwarding path by looking at the current and previous message body hash and comparing them to find for changes. If the message content is considered spammy and phishy, then ADMDs that may have contributed to that problematic message body content MAY have their reputation per domain reputation of ADMDs negatively impacted. Other ADMDs that are proven to not have contributed message content SHOULD NOT be affected.

Definitions ARC-Authentication-Results tags

• "chain=": Value of pass if local results and prior nodes are all passes, otherwise if "snr=" was present in the flow then neutral, else fail.

Examples The following two examples illustrate working DARA/Chain-Building verification. This is followed by an example of DKIM replay attack. The second to last example is illustrative of how this protocol behaves with a SPF upgrade attack. The last example demonstrates a modified message body by a forwarder. (Other examples do not have a forwarder that modifies the message) .

Originator ==> Mailing-List ==> Receiver This is an example of mail being sent from one Mail-Box-Provider to another through a Mailing-List where all ADMDs participate in DARA. In this illustrative example, we show the construction of the headers. Originator (after ARC seal) Mailing-List outbound (after ARC seal) Receiver inbound (after ARC seal) The global Chain verification result is pass and the message is considered DARA authenticated. The constructed path is [originator.example.com, mailinglist.example.com, receiver.example.com].

Originator ==> Naive-Forwarder ==>Aware-Forwarder ==>Aware-Receiver This demonstrates a naive forwarder naive.example.com that does not support DARA/Chain. The headers represent what would be seen after inbound delivery to the receiver. The global Chain verification result is neutral and the message is considered DARA unauthenticated. The constructed path is [originator.example.com, naive.example.com, intermediary.example.com, receiver.example.com].

Originator ==> Receiver ; Spammer ==> Victim Receiver Headers as seen by the receiver ADMD. Final headers as seen by the victim ADMD after replay injection to victim.example.com domain. Note at ARC set #2, it does not set a "dara=" tag, causing a path discontinuity. Due to the path discontinuity, the global Chain verification result is fail and the message is considered DARA unauthenticated. The constructed path is [dara-fail].

DMARC These protocols can act as authenticators for DMARC . As noted in the , the From header domain can be aligned with the DKIM-Signature d= domain or the ARC-Seal "d=" domains at ARC set "i=1" at the Originator. Assuming From alignment, and a chain building with DARA and verification result has a global pass, this indicates a DMARC email authentication pass. DARA and its global verification result can provide a more forwarding and body modification resilient authentication than SPF or DKIM.

Privacy Considerations The DARA techniques depend upon declaring all recipients into the mail headers, and signing them. This could leak Bcc and mailing list recipients to each other who don't have an expectation of seeing other hidden recipients. To prevent sharing of hidden recipients with each other, the message must be processed for each Bcc and mailing-list recipient where each recipient is uniquely declared and signed.

Security Considerations

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions yet.

Informative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document is a specification of the basic protocol for Internet electronic mail transport. It consolidates, updates, and clarifies several previous documents, making all or parts of most of them obsolete. It covers the SMTP extension mechanisms and best practices for the contemporary Internet, but does not provide details about particular extensions. Although SMTP was designed as a mail transport and delivery protocol, this specification also contains information that is important to its use as a "mail submission" protocol for "split-UA" (User Agent) mail reading systems and mobile environments. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. This specification is a revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Over its thirty-five-year history, Internet Mail has changed significantly in scale and complexity, as it has become a global infrastructure service. These changes have been evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, reflecting a strong desire to preserve both its installed base and its usefulness. To collaborate productively on this large and complex system, all participants need to work from a common view of it and use a common language to describe its components and the interactions among them. But the many differences in perspective currently make it difficult to know exactly what another participant means. To serve as the necessary common frame of reference, this document describes the enhanced Internet Mail architecture, reflecting the current service. This memo provides information for the Internet community. The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol provides an authenticated "chain of custody" for a message, allowing each entity that handles the message to see what entities handled it before and what the message's authentication assessment was at each step in the handling. ARC allows Internet Mail Handlers to attach assertions of message authentication assessment to individual messages. As messages traverse ARC-enabled Internet Mail Handlers, additional ARC assertions can be attached to messages to form ordered sets of ARC assertions that represent the authentication assessment at each step of the message-handling paths. ARC-enabled Internet Mail Handlers can process sets of ARC assertions to inform message disposition decisions, identify Internet Mail Handlers that might break existing authentication mechanisms, and convey original authentication assessments across trust boundaries. Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition, and reporting, that a mail-receiving organization can use to improve mail handling. Originators of Internet Mail need to be able to associate reliable and authenticated domain identifiers with messages, communicate policies about messages that use those identifiers, and report about mail using those identifiers. These abilities have several benefits: Receivers can provide feedback to Domain Owners about the use of their domains; this feedback can provide valuable insight about the management of internal operations and the presence of external domain name abuse. DMARC does not produce or encourage elevated delivery privilege of authenticated email. DMARC is a mechanism for policy distribution that enables increasingly strict handling of messages that fail authentication checks, ranging from no action, through altered delivery, up to message rejection. This document specifies a message header field called "Authentication-Results" for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions. This document obsoletes RFC 7601. DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or organization that owns the signing domain to claim some responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the message. This can be an author's organization, an operational relay, or one of their agents. DKIM separates the question of the identity of the Signer of the message from the purported author of the message. Assertion of responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate public key. Message transit from author to recipient is through relays that typically make no substantive change to the message content and thus preserve the DKIM signature. This memo obsoletes RFC 4871 and RFC 5672. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways. In particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending host can use as the "MAIL FROM" of a message or the domain given on the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands. This document describes version 1 of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative Management Domains (ADMDs) can explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use their domain names, and a receiving host can check such authorization. This document obsoletes RFC 4408. This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines a Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) extension whereby an SMTP client may indicate an authentication mechanism to the server, perform an authentication protocol exchange, and optionally negotiate a security layer for subsequent protocol interactions during this session. This extension includes a profile of the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) for SMTP. This document obsoletes RFC 2554. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Acknowledgments Thanks goes to Emanuel Schorsch, Bruce Nan, Brandon Long, John R. Levine, and Murray S. Kucherawy for their knowledgeable feedback. Many thanks also to Marc Bradshaw for his contributions to concepts of authenticating senders.

Parked Material This contains parked material that used to be present in the main part of the draft. In particular the ideas around Sender Receiver Co-Signing (SeRCi) and Relay Flow Identifier were moved here now that work is centered around Declare All Recipients and Affirm (DARA).

Introduction Spammers utilize relays to obfuscate their identities and often to spoof some other identity with email receivers. For example a spammer may exploit the shared tenancy vulnerability of SPF to spoof some identity as follows. They find a relay that hosts many different enterprise customers who include the relay's IPs in their SPF policies. The spammer then sends traffic through the relay assuming the identity of one of those customers i.e. it spoofs the MAIL FROM identity of the victim domain. While the SPF validation (if done) of the initial send by the spammer to the relay fails, a subsequent SPF validation when forwarded to some other victim receiver from the relay will pass SPF because the IPs are contained in the victim's SPF policy. At some point, the receiver notices the spam via the relay and wants to apply anti-abuse counter measures. With existing authentication methods, this policy would impact all mail flows through that relay, both innocent and malicious. A better approach would be to selectively apply anti-abuse counter measures to the spammer's flow which is what this proposal enables.

Sender Receiver Co-Signing (SeRCi)

Concepts We can create a challenge response system using cryptographic signing orchestrated between the sender and receiver of an SMTP transaction. The receiver challenges the sender to sign a mutually agreed upon value with their secret key, and can demonstrate a proof of that SMTP client-server relationship to 3rd parties. One problem is that the receiver can't proactively issue the challenge, so as part of the EHLO, the server issues the challenge as an optional SMTP extension argument. The sender can respond with the signature incorporating the shared value as a SMTP extension verb. Another problem is preventing a malicious party from intercepting a message and trying to replicate the challenge. We propose using a timestamp that can't be used in the future i.e. both parties make sure the timestamp reasonably represents the current time. This cryptographic challenge needs to sign a hash that ties the signature back to the message, and for this proposal, we take the whole message hash from the ARC-message-signature. In addition the destination domain is specified to reduce the risk for this signature to be intercepted and reused for other communications with other destination domains. Such a protocol can help authenticate to a receiver that some sender sent a message without risk of replay via some third party. Sender Receiver Co-Signing (SeRCi pronounced Cersei as in the Game-of-Thrones character) could be used similarly to SPF but without the risk of shared tenancy attack, IP reuse attack, and BPG vulnerabilities. Moreover a third party can independently verify the result that some sender and receiver sent the given message at the given time. This obviates the need to trust the ARC-Authentication-Results. Later we use SeRCi metadata to describe the forwarding path of the message. This protocol signs the messages content at the exit to the ADMD to protect the SMTP transaction and yet be insensitive to message body or header modifications by the ADMD. This is necessary to tolerate the changes that a legitimate forwarder may make such as a mailing list adding a footer or adding the name of the mailing list to the Subject header. Other forwarders may alter the Content-Transfer-Encoding or delete attachments which this protocol also tolerates. However malicious forwarders may add or replace malicious content to otherwise benign messages and this must be detected. SeRCi identifies message body changes via different body hashes between the originator and the destination. If a message is unchanged between the originator to destination, then malicious content is attributed to the originator. If a message is changed and there is malicious content, then the originator and the mutating ADMDs are assigned responsibility. Potentially the attribution can affect the receiver reputation given to the ADMDs. The existing ARC protocol can do this, however it is a risky endeavor due to the potential for ARC replay and looseness around when ARC does its ARC-Message-Signature.

SMTP Extension The SMTP extension for SeRCi for generating the hash and then publishing it, is meant to prove that the sender and receiver collaborated to create the hash. The protocol is advertised as a SMTP extension in the SMTP EHLO named SERCI with a timestamp argument. That timestamp will be in UTC seconds. If the timestamp is acceptable to the sender, then it SHOULD sign a tuple of url-safe base64 message hash used in the outbound ARC-Message-Signature, destination domain as defined in the next paragraph, and timestamp. (Subsequent base64 operations are assumed to be url-safe encoded base64 to avoid quoted-string) That signature then SHOULD be base64 encoded and disclosed to the receiver as: \ ]]> where signature is upon a hash of the formatted SeRCi result comment string to be presented by the receiver minus the signature. Note there are no white spaces in the hashed string. To create the canonical version whitespace they are removed. Thus the signature is:

\ ))) ]]> where domain corresponds to the sender's DKIM domain and selector that is used to find the DKIM public key DNS record. It also discloses the header hash and body hash that is used to compute the message hash, and are present to allow detection of differences between ARC sets. If the timestamp is not acceptable, the sender can report this as SERCI-SIGNATURE "out-of-time" and potentially the receiver will return a new timestamp. The sender is allowed to do this once, and after that the receiver MUST report an error. To prevent eavesdropping and potential spoofing, this protocol MUST be secured by SMTP TLS. Upon obtaining the signature, the receiver MUST then validate the SeRCi signature. It looks at the sender's ARC-Message-Signature hash to see if that is acceptable, meaning matches a hash the receiver generates of the message. Next it checks if the timestamp is the same as provided to the sender, and if the destination domain is the same as the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain. The SERCI-SIGNATURE command returns OK on success, otherwise some error code. An example SMTP transaction might look like: MAIL FROM:` RCPT TO: DATA SERCI-SIGNATURE \ base64() base64(

) \ base64(signsender(sha256(

\ ))) ]]>

Protocol Awareness The sender discovers the receiver's support for this protocol by a DNS txt policy lookup upon the recipient email address domain. Within this policy record MAY be a tag value indicating which SeRCi version number "v=" which MUST be set to "SERCI_1.0" when that ADMD indicates it supports SeRCi. The lookup also discovers the normalized destination domain name, and that destination domain MUST match the ADMD ARC-Seal "d=" domain which enables tracing this domain From sender to receiver as described later. The domain name is specified "serci=<domain>" in the DNS policy record. Once discovered this domain is put in the sender's ARC-Seal as" serci=<domain>", which indicates support by the receiver for the SeRCi as well as identify the intended receiver domain. If no such DNS txt policy record is found, then the receiver does not support the SeRCi protocol. This is indicated in the DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal by a SeRCi naive receiver tag/value of "snr=" and From header domain for path building described later. Further the "snr=" tag indicates to subsequent SeRCi aware receivers that there was an intermediate naive forwarder. If a domain advertises a SMTP SeRCi-SIGNATURE extension but does not publish a DNS txt policy, the sender MUST NOT call the SeRCi-SIGNATURE command as the receiver is declaring their intent to not participate in SeRCi. The following is an example of a SeRCi aware policy:

Receiver Verification The SeRCi aware receiver will verify the signature after the SeRCi-SIGNATURE verb. Assuming the receiver agrees with the signature (i.e. verifies it), the receiver will add to the ARC-Authentication-Result a new authentication-results method "serci" that has a pass result or fail result otherwise. It also adds as authentication-results properties, the values needed to contribute to the signature verification. The ptype is "smtp". The sender domain property is "sd". The selector is "s". The message body hash is "bh" and the value is encoded in base64. The header hash is "hh" and the value is encoded in base64. The timestamp is "t". This is illustrated as: () smtp.sd= smtp.s= smtp.bh=base64() smtp.hh=base64(

) smtp.t= smtp.s= smtp.b=base64() ]]>

Definitions DNS TXT Policy tag/values

• "v=": Value of "SERCI_1.0" if the ADMD supports the SeRCi verification protocol.
• "serci=": Value of the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain

DKIM-Signature or ARC-Seal tag/values

• "serci=": Value of the receiver's ARC-Seal "d=" domain when the receiver is SeRCi capable found from the SeRCi DNS policy record.
• "snr=": Value of RFC822 recipient's domain name when the receiver is naive of SeRCi.

ARC-Authentication-Results method and ptype-properties

• "serci=": Value of "pass" if sender/recipient signing validation succeeds, otherwise "fail".
• "smtp.sd=": sender domain
• "smtp.s=": selector
• "smtp.bh=": body hash in base64
• "smtp.hh=": body hash in base64
• "smtp.t=": timestamp in seconds from UTC
• "smtp.b=": signature in base64

Header Example

Relay Flow Identifier This specification defines an identifier name for mail traversing a relay. Typically the relay uses password authentication such as methods provided for in but other methods MAY be possible. This identifier MAY also be used for authenticated forwarding flows such as mailing lists and with other authentication methods such DKIM or SPF that verify who the sender is. Because some traffic may have originated at the relay, which traditionally may be DKIM signed, this document provides a specification for DKIM . In other instances, the relay forwards traffic originated elsewhere, and these are typically not DKIM signed by the relay, so instead this document provides a specification using ARC . Email Service Providers can delegate relay and forwarding services to enterprise customers, typically associated with some customer domain. Spammers utilize these features either by acting as an enterprise customer or by hijacked accounts. This specification proposes naming flows by enterprise customers to help the email receiver with categorization and application of anti-abuse counter measures. As some mechanisms for mail forwarding such as mailing lists are often opaque after being sent and problematic for debug and abuse protection, this offers a naming scheme to help identify those mechanisms.

Flow Identification Token The relaying service choosing to use this specification MUST categorize and name relayed traffic flows such that receivers can do anti-abuse analysis upon them if necessary. In order for the identifier to be effective, it SHOULD be persistent in time and uniquely named across all flows through the relay. As relayed traffic flow is often associated with a delegated domain, the first part of the identifier MUST either include a domain associated url-safe base64 token, or be empty if no such delegated domain is present. It MAY include a local part url-safe base64 token after the domain token and separated by a period '.'. This local part token can help describe the mail forwarding mechanism. Combined the domain token and the optional local token form the relay flow identifier name. If a message is associated with more than one flow, the relay SHOULD select the more specific flow based on local policy. That name MUST NOT be any relay internal name though MAY be a secure cryptographic hash of such. Also that name MUST NOT contain or be associated with any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The parser should ignore commas '+' whose use may be specified in the future. Example valid names: ]]>

ARC Authentication-Result Method This proposes a new ARC ARC-Authentication-Result defined method that identifies the presence of a relay flow and its property that identifies a relay flow identifier name. The defined method is "relay", which when present, takes a single result value of "pass" that indicates the relay was authenticated. The relay method will have a propspec tag-value with a policy ptype with a "rfid" property i.e "policy.rfid" that takes a single token value. That token value consists of a domain url-safe base64 token and the optional local url-safe base64 token separated by a period. The token parsers MUST ignore a reserved plus that may be further specified in the future. Example:

Spammer ==> Relay ==> Receiver This demonstrates a spammer sending a message through a relay to receiver. As with the above, a better approach might be to use the path based reputation system where the relay flow identifier is used to replace the domain in the path . The spammy forwarding path is [spf-neutral, relay+flow+id, receiver.example.com]. Reputation analysis using this identifier with the relay flow identifier will be more specific than the domain based approach.

Spammer ==> Gullible Forwarder ==> Receiver In this example the spammer does not participate in ARC or DARA/Chain protocol. The spammer forwards a message through an permissive cloud provider gullible.forwarder.com to reach the inbox of some user at destination.example.com. Spammer selects a victim domain that uses email services of gullible.forwarder.com such that they include the IPs of gullible.forwarder.com in their SPF policy. While the spammer cannot SPF authenticate at inbound to gullible.forwarder.com, they can SPF authenticate at inbound to destination.example.com, hence the SPF upgrade attack. While SPF and consequently DMARC is pass at the receiver, DARA/Chain verification result is neutral because the message was not originated at victim.example.com. A DMARC evaluation would likely pick the SPF result. Instead a better approach might be to use the path based reputation system. The spammy forwarding path is [spf-neutral, gullible.example.com, receiver.example.com] which include evidence of the spammer. Contrasts that to the path from a normal message delivery by victim.example.com using their cloud provider which either would look like [victim.example.com, receiver.example.com] or [victim.example.com, gullible.example.com, receiver.example.com]. Both would be distinct from the spammer forwarding flow in a path aware reputation system. The spammer may attempt to confuse the receiver by replaying ARC headers before forwarding to gullible.forwarder.com. This would change the DARA/Chain verification result to fail and the constructed path very much [arc-fail, gullible.example.com, destination.example.com]. As gullible.forwarder.com is ARC and DARA aware, it would indicate that the replayed ARC headers would not pass ARC verification.

Originator ==> Modifying Forwarder ==> Receiver This demonstrates a spammy message where the forwarder modifies the message content, representing for example a mailing list adding a footer. While the global Chain verification result is pass and the message is considered DARA authenticated, the modified message body change is visible via the modified body algorithm. The constructed path is [originator.example.com, modified-message-body, intermediary.example.com, receiver.example.com] where we embellish the path with the modification result. The set of contributing domains associated with the spammy message is {originator.example.com, intermediary.example.com}. A different message may travel along the same forwarding path but is not modified by the forwarder. That non-modifying forwarder constructed path is: [originator.example.com, intermediary.example.com, destination.example.com], and is distinct from above. The set of contributing domains associated with the message content is now {originator.example.com}.