SMTP Require TLS Option
draft-fenton-smtp-require-tls-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Jim Fenton | ||
| Last updated | 2016-01-10 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls, RFC 8689 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-fenton-smtp-require-tls-00
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Fenton
Internet-Draft January 10, 2016
Intended status: Experimental
Expires: July 13, 2016
SMTP Require TLS Option
draft-fenton-smtp-require-tls-00
Abstract
The SMTP STARTTLS option, used in negotiating transport-level
encryption of SMTP connections, is not as useful from a security
standpoint as it might be because of its opportunistic nature;
message delivery is prioritized over security. This document
describes a complementary option, REQUIRETLS, which causes message
delivery to fail if a TLS connection with the required security
characteristics cannot be negotiated with the next hop MTA or if that
MTA does not also support REQUIRETLS. Message originators may
therefore expect transport security for messages sent with this
option.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The REQUIRETLS Service Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. REQUIRETLS Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. REQUIRETLS Receipt Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. REQUIRETLS Sender Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. REQUIRETLS Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Delivery of REQUIRETLS messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The SMTP [RFC5321] STARTTLS service extension [RFC3207] provides a
means by which an SMTP server and client can negotiate a Transport
Layer Security (TLS) protected session for the transmission of email
messages. In this application, TLS is used only upon mutual
agreement (successful negotiation) between the client and server; if
this is not possible, the message is sent unencrypted. Furthermore,
even if a TLS protected session is negotiated, it is uncommon for the
client to abort the SMTP session if certificate validation fails.
The opportunistic nature of SMTP TLS enables several "on the wire"
attacks on SMTP security between MTAs. These include passive
eavesdropping on connections for which TLS was not negotiated,
interference in the SMTP protocol to prevent TLS from being
negotiated (usually followed by subsequent eavesdropping), and
insertion of a man-in-the-middle attacker taking advantage of the
lack of server authentication by the client. Attacks are more
described in more detail in the Security Considerations section of
this document.
The REQUIRETLS SMTP service extension allows the SMTP client to
specify that all messages sent during a particular session MUST be
sent over a TLS protected session with specified security
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
characteristics. It also requires that the SMTP server advertise
that it also supports REQUIRETLS, in effect promising that it will
honor the requirement to negotiate STARTTLS and REQUIRETLS for all
onward transmissions of any of the messages contained in this
session.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. The REQUIRETLS Service Extension
1. The textual name of the extension is "Require TLS".
2. The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"REQUIRETLS".
3. One additional SMTP verb, also named REQUIRETLS, is defined by
this extension.
4. Two new SMTP status codes are defined by this extension to convey
error conditions resulting from failure of the client to
negotiate a TLS connection with the required security and as a
result of an attempt to send to a server not also supporting the
REQUIRETLS extension.
An optional parameter to the REQUIRETLS SMTP verb, if present,
specifies the method(s) for server authentication that the server
MUST use for any onward transmission of the following messages. The
parameter takes the form of either a single value or comma-separated
list, separated from the verb by a single "=" (equals-sign)
character. If present, the parameter MUST take one or more of the
following values:
o CHAIN - The certificate presented by the SMTP server MUST verify
successfully in a trust chain leading to a certificate trusted by
the SMTP client. The choice of trusted (root) certificates by the
client is at their own discretion. The client MAY choose to use
the certificate set maintained by the CA/B forum [citation needed]
for this purpose.
o DANE - The certificate presented by the SMTP server MUST verify
succesfully using DANE as specified in RFC 7672 [RFC7672].
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
If the parameter is not present, the default behavior is that the
certificate presented by the SMTP server MAY be authenticated, but is
not required to be.
3. REQUIRETLS Semantics
3.1. REQUIRETLS Receipt Requirements
Upon receipt of a REQUIRETLS verb from a client, an SMTP server MUST
tag all subsequent messages received during that session as requiring
TLS transmission with the specified authentication method(s). The
manner in which this tagging takes place is implementation-dependent.
3.2. REQUIRETLS Sender Requirements
When sending a message tagged with a TLS requirement, the sending
(client) MTA MUST:
o Open an SMTP session with the peer SMTP server using the EHLO
verb. If the server does not advertise the REQUIRETLS capability,
the client MUST bounce the message with a TBD error code as
described in section xxx.
o Negotiate a TLS-protected SMTP session with its peer SMTP server
and authenticate the server's certificate with the specified
authentication method. If it is unable to do so, the client MUST
bounce the message with a TBD error code as described in section
xxx.
o Issue the REQUIRETLS verb with the required authentication
method(s), if any.
o Transmit the associated message(s).
o If multiple messages are to be transmitted with different
authentication requirements, the REQUIRETLS command can be
repeated to change the authentication method for subsequent
messages. However, the TLS connection being used MUST satisfy the
new as well as the former authentication method(s).
3.3. REQUIRETLS Submission
An MUA or other agent making the initial introduction of a message to
SMTP has authority to decide whether to require TLS, and if so, using
what authentication method(s). It does so by issuing the REQUIRETLS
verb in the SMTP session associated with message submission. This
MAY be done based on a user interface selection, on a header field
included in the message, or based on policy. The manner in which the
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
decision to require TLS is made is implementation-dependent and is
beyond the scope of this specification.
3.4. Delivery of REQUIRETLS messages
Messages are usually delivered to end users using protocols other
than SMTP such as IMAP [RFC3501], POP [RFC1939], or web mail systems.
Mail delivery agents supporting REQUIRETLS SHOULD require that
message delivery take place over authenticated, encrypted channels.
4. Error handling
Error ("bounce") messages contain important metadata, and therefore
MUST be protected in the same manner as the original message. All
error handling, whether resulting from a REQUIRETLS error or some
other, MUST employ REQUIRETLS at the same authentication method(s) as
the message that caused the error to occur.
It should be noted that the path from the origination of an error
bounce message back to the MAIL FROM address may not share the same
REQUIRETLS support as the forward path. Therefore, users of
REQUIRETLS are advised to make sure that they are capable of
receiving mail using REQUIRETLS at the same authentication method(s)
as messages they send. Otherwise, such error bounces will be lost.
5. IANA Considerations
If published as an RFC, this draft requests the addition of the
keyword REQUIRETLS to the SMTP Service Extensions registry MAILPARAMS
[MailParams]
If published as an RFC, this draft also requests the creation of a
registry, REQUIRETLS Security Requirements, to be initially populated
with the CHAIN and DANE keywords.
This section is to be removed during conversion into an RFC by the
RFC Editor.
6. Security Considerations
The purpose of REQUIRETLS is to improve communications security for
email by giving the originator of a message an expectation that it
will be transmitted in an encrypted form "over the wire". When used,
REQUIRETLS changes the traditional behavior of email transmission,
which favors delivery over the ability to send email messages using
transport-layer security, to one in which messages are not
transmitted unless the required security is available.
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
REQUIRETLS is negotiated over SMTP by the MTAs along the message
transmission path. Accordingly, a bad-actor MTA could misrepresent
its support of REQUIRETLS and/or actively strip REQUIRETLS tags from
messages it handles. However, since the originator of a message
trusts the MTA that it submits the message to forward the message
according to its instructions, and the recipient trusts MTAs that it
lists in its MX records. MTAs that can be trusted with the cleartext
of messages (since encryption is at the transport layer) are assumed
to also be trustworthy to honor their REQUIRETLS obligations as well.
One exception to this trust can occur if an attacker is able to spoof
the MX record(s) for the receiving domain to an earlier hop MTA. The
attacker could then successfully negotiate TLS with the earlier MTA,
since it should be able to obtain a certificate for the hostname it
spoofed. This is actually a more generic attack on SMTP TLS that is
also effective against REQUIRETLS since the attacker could forward
the message onward without REQUIRETLS. For these reasons, domains
receiving email SHOULD deploy DNSSEC [RFC4033].
It should be reemphasized that since SMTP TLS is a transport-layer
security protocol, messages sent using REQUIRETLS are not encrypted
end-to-end and are visible to MTAs that are part of the message
delivery path. Messages containing sensitive information that MTAs
should not have access to MUST be sent using end-to-end content
encryption such as OpenPGP [RFC4880] or S/MIME [RFC5751].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[MailParams]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "IANA Mail
Parameters", 2007,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
February 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207>.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SMTP Require TLS Option January 2016
7.2. Informative References
[RFC1939] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, DOI 10.17487/RFC1939, May 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1939>.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R.
Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880>.
[RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
Specification", RFC 5751, DOI 10.17487/RFC5751, January
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5751>.
[RFC7672] Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "SMTP Security via
Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
(DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7672,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7672, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7672>.
Author's Address
Jim Fenton
704 Benvenue Avenue
Los Altos, California 94024
USA
Email: fenton@bluepopcorn.net
Fenton Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 7]