[ietf-dkim] DKIM Threat Analysis v0.06

[Arvel Hathcock]

I suppose bad actors could also be construed as any person or process which 
introduces unauthorized email message content change.  I for one will have 
to think on this one before answering.

Does anyone else have anything to say on this thread?  Please post and help 
us out.

--
Arvel

> Here's what I think.
>
>> 1.  Who are the bad actors that DKIM is trying to thwart?  Put another
>> way, if DKIM is deployed, what bad actors will have to find a different
>> way to perform their bad acts.
>
> The bad actors are anyone who would use a domain name in an identity 
> header of an email message without authorization from the domain owner. 
> The same will have to discover a new means of doing so.
>
>> 2.  Where are these bad actors in the protocol environment?  Where in
>> the email system do they pop up to perform the acts that DKIM is trying
>> to prevent.  Again, different bad actors may appear at different places.
>>
>> 3.  What are the bad acts that DKIM is trying to thwart?  The first two
>> questions are really background for this question.
>
> These are so related it's hard for me to separate.  Unauthorized domain 
> use is a means to several ends.  The 'end' will determine where, in the 
> email delivery chain, the bad actor "pops up".  When the goal is to trash 
> the reputation of a domain owner in the eyes of an email user or ply some 
> scam part of which requires the unauthorized use of a domain to lend it 
> credibility, the "pop up" is the MUA of an email user and the effect takes 
> place in the mind of that user.  When the goal is to thwart filtering 
> agents or attempt to manipulate a receiving domain's incoming email policy 
> in some way the "pop up" is at the point wherein those processes are 
> invoked and the effect is in reducing or rendering useless the 
> effectiveness of those processes.
>
> -- 
> Arvel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-dkim mailing list
> http://dkim.org
>
>