Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (dmarc WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Scott Kitterman , Tim Wicinski | ||
| Last updated | 2021-04-22 (latest revision 2021-04-12) | ||
| Replaces | draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Experimental | ||
| Formats | plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Alexey Melnikov | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2021-03-22) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Action Holders | |||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved. |
||
| Responsible AD | Murray Kucherawy | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
Network Working Group S. Kitterman
Internet-Draft fTLD Registry Services
Intended status: Experimental T. Wicinski, Ed.
Expires: October 14, 2021 April 12, 2021
Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12
Abstract
Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC) permits a domain-controlling organization to express domain-
level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition,
and reporting, which a mail-receiving organization can use to improve
mail handling.
DMARC distinguishes the portion of a name that is a Public Suffix
Domain (PSD), below which organizational domain names are created.
The basic DMARC capability allows organizational domains to specify
policies that apply to their subdomains, but it does not give that
capability to PSDs. This document describes an extension to DMARC to
fully enable DMARC functionality for PSDs.
Some implementations of DMARC consider a PSD to be ineligible for
DMARC enforcement. This specification addresses that case.
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 https://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 October 14, 2021.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Public Suffix Domain (PSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Organizational Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Longest PSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Public Suffix Operator (PSO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. PSO Controlled Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Non-existent Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. PSD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format" . . . . . 7
3.3. Changes in Section 6.5 "Domain Owner Actions" . . . . . . 7
3.4. Changes in Section 6.6.1 "Extract Author Domain" . . . . 7
3.5. Changes in Section 6.6.3 "Policy Discovery" . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Changes in Section 7 "DMARC Feedback" . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Feedback leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Subdomain Policy Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. PSD DMARC Privacy Concern Mitigation Experiment . . 12
Appendix B. DMARC PSD Registry Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. DMARC PSD DNS Query Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.2. DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD) Registry . . . . . . . . 13
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
B.3. DMARC PSD PSL Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix C. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.1. Authheaders Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C.2. Zdkimfilter Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
DMARC ([RFC7489]) provides a mechanism for publishing organizational
policy information to email receivers. DMARC allows policy to be
specified for both individual domains and for organizational domains
and their sub-domains within a single organization.
To determine the organizational domain for a message under
evaluation, and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC
makes use of a public suffix list. The process for doing this can be
found in Section 3.2 of the DMARC specification. Currently the
public suffix list being used is the most common one that is
maintained by the Mozilla Foundation and made public at
http://publicsuffix.org [1].
In the basic DMARC model, PSDs are not organizational domains and are
thus not subject to DMARC processing. In DMARC, domains fall into
one of three categories: organizational domains, sub-domains of
organizational domains, or PSDs. A PSD can only publish DMARC policy
for itself, and not for any sub-domains under it. In some cases,
this limitation allows for the abuse of non-existent organizational-
level domains and hampers identification of domain abuse in email.
This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC
specification cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
1.1. Example
As an example, imagine a Top-Level Domain (TLD), ".example", that has
public subdomains for government and commercial use (".gov.example"
and ".com.example"). The maintainer of a list of such a PSD
structure would include entries for both of these sub-domains,
thereby indicating that they are PSDs, below which organizational
domains can be registered. Suppose further that there exists a
legitimate domain called "tax.gov.example", registered within
".gov.example".
However, by exploiting the typically unauthenticated nature of email,
there are regular malicious campaigns to impersonate this
organization that use similar-looking ("cousin") domains such as
"t4x.gov.example". Such domains are not registered.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
Within the ".gov.example" public suffix, use of DMARC has been
mandated, so "gov.example" publishes the following DMARC DNS record:
_dmarc.gov.example. IN TXT ( "v=DMARC1; p=reject;"
"rua=mailto:dmc@dmarc.svc.gov.example" )
This DMARC record provides policy and a reporting destination for
mail sent from @gov.example. Similarly, "tax.gov.example" will have
a DMARC record that specifies policy for mail sent from addresses
@tax.gov.example. However, due to DMARC's current method of
discovering and applying policy at the organizational domain level,
the non-existent organizational domain of @t4x.gov.example does not
and cannot fall under a DMARC policy.
Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is not a scalable
strategy. The intent of this specification, therefore, is to enhance
the DMARC discovery method by enabling an agent receiving such a
message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at
"gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC specification.
1.2. Discussion
This document provides a simple extension to [RFC7489] to allow
operators of Public Suffix Domains (PSDs) to:
o Express policy at the level of the PSD that covers all
organizational domains that do not explicitly publish DMARC
records
o Extends the DMARC policy query functionality to detect and process
such a policy
o Describes receiver feedback for such policies
o Provides controls to mitigate potential privacy considerations
associated with this extension
This document also provides a new DMARC tag to indicate requested
handling policy for non-existent subdommains. This is provided
specifically to support phased deployment of PSD DMARC, but is
expected to be useful more generally. Undesired rejection risks for
mail purporting to be from domains that do not exist are
substantially lower than for those that do, so the operational risk
of requesting harsh policy treatment (e.g. reject) is lower.
As an additional benefit, the PSD DMARC extension clarifies existing
requirements. Based on the requirements of [RFC7489], DMARC should
function above the organizational level for exact domain matches
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
(i.e. if a DMARC record were published for 'example', then mail from
example@example should be subject to DMARC processing). Testing had
revealed that this is not consistently applied in different
implementations.
There are two types of Public Suffix Operators (PSOs) for which this
extension would be useful and appropriate:
o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively
Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control
all subdomains of the tree. These are effectively private
domains, but listed in the current public suffix list. They are
treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same
protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently
unable to benefit from DMARC.
o Multi-organization PSDs that require DMARC usage (e.g., ".bank"):
Because existing Organizational Domains using this PSD have their
own DMARC policy, the applicability of this extension is for non-
existent domains. The extension allows the brand protection
benefits of DMARC to extend to the entire PSD, including cousin
domains of registered organizations.
Due to the design of DMARC and the nature of the Internet email
architecture [RFC5598], there are interoperability issues associated
with DMARC deployment. These are discussed in Interoperability
Issues between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows [RFC7960]. These
issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the
".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail.
2. Terminology and Definitions
This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Public Suffix Domain (PSD)
The global Internet Domain Name System (DNS) is documented in
numerous Requests for Comment (RFC). It defines a tree of names
starting with root, ".", immediately below which are Top Level Domain
names such as ".com" and ".us". The domain name structure consists
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
of a tree of names, each of which is made of a sequence of words
("labels") separated by period characters. The root of the tree is
simply called ".". The Internet community at large, through
processes and policies external to this work, selects points in this
tree at which to register domain names "owned" by independent
organizations. Real-world examples are ".com", ".org", ".us", and
".gov.uk". Names at which such registrations occur are called Public
Suffix Domains (PSDs), and a registration consists of a label
selected by the registrant to which a desirable PSD is appended. For
example, "ietf.org" is a registered domain name, and ".org" is its
PSD.
2.3. Organizational Domain
The term Organizational Domains is defined in [RFC7489] Section 3.2.
2.4. Longest PSD
The longest PSD is the Organizational Domain with one label removed.
It names the immediate parent node of the Organizational Domain in
the DNS namespace tree.
2.5. Public Suffix Operator (PSO)
A Public Suffix Operator is an organization which manages operations
within a PSD, particularly the DNS records published for names at and
under that domain name.
2.6. PSO Controlled Domain Names
PSO Controlled Domain Names are names in the DNS that are managed by
a PSO and are not available for use as Organizational Domains. PSO
Controlled Domain Names may have one (e.g., ".com") or more (e.g.,
".co.uk") name components, depending on PSD policy.
2.7. Non-existent Domains
For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there
is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records. This
is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].
3. PSD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements
This document updates DMARC as follows:
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
3.1. General Updates
References to "Domain Owners" also apply to PSOs.
3.2. Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format"
A new tag is added after "fo":
np: Requested Mail Receiver policy for non-existent subdomains
(plain-text; OPTIONAL). Indicates the policy to be enacted by the
Receiver at the request of the Domain Owner. It applies only to
non-existent subdomains of the domain queried and not to either
existing subdomains or the domain itself. Its syntax is identical
to that of the "p" tag defined below. If the 'np' tag is absent,
the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is present)
or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is not
present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. Note that
"np" will be ignored for DMARC records published on subdomains of
Organizational Domains and PSDs due to the effect of the DMARC
policy discovery mechanism described in DMARC Section 6.6.3.
The following tag definitions from DMARC are updated:
p: The sentence 'Policy applies to the domain queried and to
subdomains, unless subdomain policy is explicitly described using
the "sp" tag' is updated to read 'Policy applies to the domain
queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain policy is explicitly
described using the "sp" or "np" tags.'
sp: The sentence 'If absent, the policy specified by the "p" tag
MUST be applied for subdomains' is updated to read 'If both the
'sp' tag is absent and the 'np' tag is either absent or not
applicable, the policy specified by the "p" tag MUST be applied
for subdomains.
3.3. Changes in Section 6.5 "Domain Owner Actions"
In addition to the DMARC domain owner actions, PSOs that require use
of DMARC and participate in PSD DMARC ought to make that information
available to receivers. This document is an experimental mechanism
for doing so. See the [this document] experiment description
(Appendix A).
3.4. Changes in Section 6.6.1 "Extract Author Domain"
Experience with DMARC has shown that some implementations short-
circuit messages, bypassing DMARC policy application, when the domain
name extracted by the receiver (from the RFC5322.From) is on the
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
public suffix list used by the receiver. This negates the capability
being created by this specification. Therefore, the following
paragraph is appended to Section 6.6.1 of DMARC:
Note that domain names that appear on a public suffix list are not
exempt from DMARC policy application and reporting.
3.5. Changes in Section 6.6.3 "Policy Discovery"
A new step between step 3 and 4 is added:
3A. If the set is now empty and the longest PSD (Section 2.4) of the
Organizational Domain is one that the receiver has determined is
acceptable for PSD DMARC (discussed in the [this document]
experiment description (Appendix A)), the Mail Receiver MUST query
the DNS for a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the
[this document] longest PSD (Section 2.4) in place of the
RFC5322.From domain in the message (if different). A possibly
empty set of records is returned.
As an example, for a message with the Organizational Domain of
"example.compute.cloudcompany.com.example", the query for PSD DMARC
would use "compute.cloudcompany.com.example" as the [this document]
longest PSD (Section 2.4). The receiver would check to see if that
PSD is listed in the DMARC PSD Registry, and if so, perform the
policy lookup at "_dmarc.compute.cloudcompany.com.example".
Note: Because the PSD policy query comes after the Organizational
Domain policy query, PSD policy is not used for Organizational
domains that have published a DMARC policy. Specifically, this is
not a mechanism to provide feedback addresses (RUA/RUF) when an
Organizational Domain has declined to do so.
3.6. Changes in Section 7 "DMARC Feedback"
Operational note for PSD DMARC: For PSOs, feedback for non-existent
domains is desirable and useful, just as it is for org-level DMARC
operators. See Section 4 of [this document] for discussion of
Privacy Considerations for PSD DMARC.
4. Privacy Considerations
These privacy considerations are developed based on the requirements
of [RFC6973]. Additionally, the Privacy Considerations of [RFC7489]
apply to the mechanisms described by this document.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
4.1. Feedback leakage
Providing feedback reporting to PSOs can, in some cases, cause
information to leak out of an organization to the PSO. This leakage
could potentially be utilized as part of a program of pervasive
surveillance (See [RFC7624]). There are roughly three cases to
consider:
o Single Organization PSDs (e.g., ".google"), RUA and RUF reports
based on PSD DMARC have the potential to contain information about
emails related to entities managed by the organization. Since
both the PSO and the Organizational Domain owners are common,
there is no additional privacy risk for either normal or non-
existent Domain reporting due to PSD DMARC.
o Multi-organization PSDs that require DMARC usage (e.g., ".bank"):
PSD DMARC based reports will only be generated for domains that do
not publish a DMARC policy at the organizational or host level.
For domains that do publish the required DMARC policy records, the
feedback reporting addresses (RUA and RUF) of the organization (or
hosts) will be used. The only direct feedback leakage risk for
these PSDs are for Organizational Domains that are out of
compliance with PSD policy. Data on non-existent cousin domains
would be sent to the PSO.
o Multi-organization PSDs (e.g., ".com") that do not mandate DMARC
usage: Privacy risks for Organizational Domains that have not
deployed DMARC within such PSDs are significant. For non-DMARC
Organizational Domains, all DMARC feedback will be directed to the
PSO. PSD DMARC is opt-out (by publishing a DMARC record at the
Organizational Domain level) vice opt-in, which would be the more
desirable characteristic. This means that any non-DMARC
organizational domain would have its feedback reports redirected
to the PSO. The content of such reports, particularly for
existing domains, is privacy sensitive.
PSOs will receive feedback on non-existent domains, which may be
similar to existing Organizational Domains. Feedback related to such
cousin domains have a small risk of carrying information related to
an actual Organizational Domain. To minimize this potential concern,
PSD DMARC feedback MUST be limited to Aggregate Reports. Feedback
Reports carry more detailed information and present a greater risk.
Due to the inherent Privacy and Security risks associated with PSD
DMARC for Organizational Domains in multi-organization PSDs that do
not particpate in DMARC, any Feedback Reporting related to multi-
organizational PSDs MUST be limited to non-existent domains except in
cases where the reporter knows that PSO requires use of DMARC.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
5. Security Considerations
This document does not change the Security Considerations of
[RFC7489] and [RFC7960].
The risks of the issues identified in [RFC7489], Section 12.3, DNS
Security, are amplified by PSD DMARC. In particular, DNS cache
poisoning (or Name Chaining), see [RFC3833] for details, consequences
are increased because a successful attack would potentially have a
much wider scope.
The risks of the issues identified in [RFC7489], Section 12.5,
External Reporting Addresses, are amplified by PSD DMARC. By design,
PSD DMARC causes unrequested reporting of feedback to entities
external to the Organizational Domain. This is discussed in more
detail in Section 4.
6. IANA Considerations
This section describes actions requested to be completed by IANA.
6.1. Subdomain Policy Tag
IANA is requested to add a new tag to DMARC Tag Registry in the
Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC) Parameters Registry.
The entry is as follows:
+----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+
| Tag Name | Reference | Status | Description |
+----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+
| np | this | current | Requested handling policy for |
| | document | | non-existent subdomains |
+----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[psddmarc.org]
multiple, "PSD DMARC Web Site", April 2019,
<https://psddmarc.org/>.
[RFC3833] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, DOI 10.17487/RFC3833, August
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3833>.
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC7624] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.
[RFC7960] Martin, F., Ed., Lear, E., Ed., Draegen, T., Ed., Zwicky,
E., Ed., and K. Andersen, Ed., "Interoperability Issues
between Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting,
and Conformance (DMARC) and Indirect Email Flows",
RFC 7960, DOI 10.17487/RFC7960, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7960>.
[RFC8020] Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Huque, "NXDOMAIN: There Really Is
Nothing Underneath", RFC 8020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8020,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8020>.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
7.3. URIs
[1] http://publicsuffix.org
Appendix A. PSD DMARC Privacy Concern Mitigation Experiment
The experiment being performed has three different questions which
are looking to be addressed in this document.
o Section 3.2 modifies policy discovery to add an additional DNS
lookup. To determine if this lookup is useful, PSDs will add
additional DMARC records in place, and will analyze the DMARC
reports. Success will be determined if a consensus of PSDs that
publish DMARC records are able to collect useful data.
o Section 3.2 adds the "np" tag for non-existent subdomains (DNS
NXDOMAIN). PSOs wishing to test this will add this flag to their
DMARC record, and will analyze DMARC reports for deployment.
Success will be determined if organizations find explicitly
blocking non-existent subdomains domains desirable and provide
added value.
o Section 4.1 discusses three cases where providing feedback could
cause information to leak out of an organization. This experiment
will analyze the feedback reports generated for each case to
determine if there is information leakage.
Appendix B. DMARC PSD Registry Examples
To facilitate experimentation around data leakage mitigation, samples
of the DNS based and IANA like registries are available at
[psddmarc.org].
B.1. DMARC PSD DNS Query Service
A sample stand-alone DNS query service is available at
[psddmarc.org]. It was developed based on the contents suggested for
an IANA registry in an earlier revision of this draft. Usage of the
service is described on the web site.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
B.2. DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD) Registry
[psddmarc.org] provides an IANA like DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD)
Registry as a stand-alone DNS query service. It follows the contents
and structure described below. There is a Comma Separated Value
(CSV) version of the listed PSD domains which is suitable for use in
build updates for PSD DMARC capable software.
Names of PSDs participating in PSD DMARC must be registered this new
registry. New entries are assigned only for PSDs that require use of
DMARC. The requirement has to be documented in a manner that
satisfies the terms of Expert Review, per [RFC8126]. The Designated
Expert needs to confirm that provided documentation adequately
describes PSD policy to require domain owners to use DMARC or that
all domain owners are part of a single organization with the PSO.
The initial set of entries in this registry is as follows:
+-------------+---------------+
| PSD | Status |
+-------------+---------------+
| .bank | current |
+-------------+---------------+
| .insurance | current |
+-------------+---------------+
| .gov.uk | current |
+-------------+---------------+
| .mil | current |
+-------------+---------------+
B.3. DMARC PSD PSL Extension
[psddmarc.org] provides a file formatted like the Public Suffix List
(PSL) in order to facilitate identification of PSD DMARC
participants. Contents are functionally identical to the IANA like
registry, but presented in a different format.
When using this approach, the input domain of the extension lookup is
supposed to be the output domain of the regular PSL lookup, i.e. the
organizational domain. This alternative data approach is potentially
useful since DMARC implementations already need to be able to parse
the data format, so it should be easier to implement.
Appendix C. Implementations
There are two known implementations of PSD DMARC available for
testing.
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PSD DMARC April 2021
C.1. Authheaders Module
The authheaders Python module and command line tool is available for
download or installation from Pypi (Python Packaging Index).
It supports both use of the DNS based query service and download of
the CSV registry file from [psddmarc.org].
C.2. Zdkimfilter Module
The zdkimfilter module is a separately available add-on to Courier-
MTA.
Mostly used for DKIM signing, it can be configured to also verify,
apply DMARC policies, and send aggregate reports. For PSD DMARC it
uses the PSL extension list approach, which is available from
[psddmarc.org]
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions (both
public and private) to improving this document. Special shout out to
Dave Crocker for naming the beast.
Kurt Andersen, Seth Blank, Dave Crocker, Heather Diaz, Tim Draegen,
Zeke Hendrickson, Andrew Kennedy, John Levine, Dr Ian Levy, Craig
Schwartz, Alessandro Vesely, and Tim Wicinski
Authors' Addresses
Scott Kitterman
fTLD Registry Services
600 13th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America
Phone: +1 301 325-5475
Email: scott@kitterman.com
Tim Wicinski (editor)
Elkins, WV 26241
USA
Email: tjw.ietf@gmail.com
Kitterman & Wicinski Expires October 14, 2021 [Page 14]