Network Working Group K. Moore
Internet-Draft Network Heretics
Updates: 1939, 2595, 3464, 3501, 5068, C. Newman
6186, 6409 (if approved) Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track July 9, 2016
Expires: January 10, 2017
Mail User Agent Strict Transport Security (MUA-STS)
draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-05.txt
Abstract
This specification defines a set of requirements and facilities
designed to improve email confidentiality between a mail user agent
(MUA) and a mail submission or mail access server. This provides
mechanisms intended to increase use of already deployed Transport
Layer Security (TLS) technology and provides a model for a mail user
agent's confidentiality assurance. This enables mail service
providers to advertise strict transport security (STS) policies that
request MUAs increase confidentiality assurance.
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 January 10, 2017.
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
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Terminology Used in This Document . . . . . . 4
3. Mail Account Confidentiality Assurance Level . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. High Confidentiality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. No Confidentiality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Other Confidentiality Assurance Levels . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Implicit TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Implicit TLS for POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Implicit TLS for IMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Implicit TLS for SMTP Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Implicit TLS Connection Closure for POP, IMAP and SMTP . . 9
5. Email Security Upgrading Using Security Directives . . . . . . 9
6. Server Strict Transport Security Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Client Storage of Email Security Directives . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Security Directive Upgrade Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Security Policy Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Recording TLS Cipher Suite in Received Header . . . . . . . . 12
9. Extensions for STS Policy and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. IMAP STS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. POP DEEP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.3. SMTP MSTS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Account Setup Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Use of SRV records in Establishing Configuration . . . . . 17
10.2. Certificate Pinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. All Implementations (Client and Server) . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1.1. Client Certificate Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Mail Server Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . 19
11.3. Mail User Agent Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . 20
11.4. Non-configurable MUAs and nonstandard access protocols . . 21
11.5. DEEP Compliance for Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software and
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Mail Service Provider Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.1. Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.2. MSPs MUST provide Submission Servers . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.3. TLS Server Certificate Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.4. Recommended DNS records for mail protocol servers . . . . 22
12.4.1. MX records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.4.2. SRV records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
12.4.3. DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.4.4. TLSA records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.5. MSP Server Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.6. Advertisement of DEEP status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.7. Require TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.8. Changes to Internet Facing Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.1. Security Directive Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.2. Initial Set of Security Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.3. POP3S Port Registration Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13.4. IMAPS Port Registration Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13.5. Submissions Port Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13.6. STS IMAP Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.7. STS POP3 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.8. MSTS SMTP EHLO Keyword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.9. MAIL Parameters Additional-registered-clauses
Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
1. Introduction
Software that provides email service via Internet Message Access
Protocol (IMAP) [RFC3501], Post Office Protocol (POP) [RFC1939]
and/or Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Submission [RFC6409]
usually has Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] support but
often does not use it in a way that maximizes end-user
confidentiality. This specification proposes changes to email
software and deployments intended to increase the use of TLS and
record when that use occurs. This adapts the strict transport
security (STS) model described in [RFC6797] to cover mail user agents
(MUAs).
In brief, this memo now recommends that:
o MUAs associate a confidentiality assurance level with each mail
account, and the default level requires use of TLS with
certificate validation for all TCP connections;
o TLS on a well-known port ("Implicit TLS") be supported for IMAP,
POP, and SMTP Submission [RFC6409] for all electronic mail user
agents (MUAs), servers, and service providers;
o MUAs and mail protocol servers cooperate (via mechanisms defined
in this specification) to upgrade security feature use and record/
indicate that usage appropriately. The security upgrade model is
aligned with the HTTP STS specification [RFC6797].
This does not address use of TLS with SMTP for message relay (where
Message Submission [RFC6409] does not apply). Improved use of TLS
with SMTP for message relay requires a different approach. One
approach to address that topic is described in [RFC7672].
The recommendations in this memo do not replace the functionality of,
and are not intended as a substitute for, end-to-end encryption of
electronic mail.
This draft is subject to change. Implementation of this proposal is
not recommended at this time. Please discuss this proposal on the
ietf-uta mailing list.
2. Conventions and Terminology Used in This Document
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 [RFC2119].
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
This specification expresses syntax using the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) as described in [RFC5234], including the core rules in
Appendix B and rules from [RFC5322].
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively. If a single "C:" or "S:" label applies to
multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines are for
editorial clarity only and are not part of the actual protocol
exchange.
3. Mail Account Confidentiality Assurance Level
A "mail account" refers to the network services an end user uses to
read, submit and manage email communications on the Internet. This
typically involves at least one mail access server (IMAP or POP) and
at least one SMTP submission server. An end users uses a mail user
agent (MUA) to access a mail account and most MUAs support one or
more mail accounts. This document uses the term "confidentiality
assurance level" to indicate the degree to which the network
connections between an MUA and a mail account have confidentiality
protection from both passive and active attackers on the network.
The configuration necessary for a mail account includes an email
address, connection information and authentication credentials for
network services. MUAs compliant with this specification MUST also
associate a confidentiality assurance level with each mail account.
MUAs MUST implement a high confidentiality assurance level as
described in the next section.
MUAs SHOULD continuously indicate to the user the confidentiality
assurance level of the account currently in use when reading,
submitting and managing mail (e.g., via a lock icon, background
colors and indications similar to those commonly used in web browsers
for a similar purpose) and SHOULD indicate the confidentiality
assurance level for each account whenever displaying a list of mail
accounts. Note that the displayed confidentiality assurance level
could be higher than the level set at account configuration but never
lower. If multiple active connections are associated with an account
or view, the indication should match the level provided by the least
confidential connection.
Account configuration occurs when an MUA is first used to access a
particular service, when a user wishes to access or submit mail
through servers in addition to those specified or found during first
use, or when a user explicitly requests to change account
configuration parameters such as server names, user names, passwords,
client certificates, etc. Account configuration can be entirely
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
manual (entering server names explicitly) or partially automated via
a mechanism such as DNS SRV records [RFC6186]. MUAs SHOULD use the
high confidentiality assurance level as the default for newly
configured accounts.
3.1. High Confidentiality Assurance
A mail account has a high confidentiality assurance when the
following conditions are met on all TCP server connections associated
with an account. This includes connections to POP, IMAP and SMTP
submission servers as well as any other associated protocols defined
now or in the future. Examples of protocols associated with a mail
account include managesieve [RFC5804] and MTQP [RFC3887].
o TCP connections MUST attempt to negotiate TLS via either Implicit
TLS Section 4 or STARTTLS.
o MUAs MUST implement [RFC7817] and PKIX [RFC5280].
o MUAs MAY implement DANE [RFC6698].
o User agents MUST abort a TLS session if the TLS negotiation fails
or the server's certificate or identity fails to verify. A user
may reconfigure the account to lower the expected level of
confidentiality if he/she chooses. Reduction of expected account
confidentiality MUST NOT be done on a click-through basis.
The end user is part of the system that protects the user's
confidentiality and security. As a result, it's critical not to
present the end user with a simple action that reduces their
confidentiality in response to certificate validation failure. An
MUA which offers a user actions such as "connect anyway", "trust
certificate for future connections" or "lower confidentiality
assurance for this account" in response to certificate validation
failure is not providing a high confidentiality assurance as defined
in this section and thus does not comply with this document.
Examples of acceptable actions to offer would be "work offline", "try
again later", and "open service provider status web page".
3.2. No Confidentiality Assurance
MUAs MAY implement a no confidentiality assurance level for accounts.
At this level, the MUA MUST attempt to negotiate TLS, but MAY ignore
server certificate validation failures. MUAs MAY support use of
connections without TLS, but if they do they SHOULD attempt TLS first
if available and MUST implement code to reconnect without TLS if TLS
negotiation fails for reasons other than server certificate validity.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
Note that if the TLS certificate is not successfully validated as
described in Section 3.1 or a version of SSL/TLS prior to TLS 1.1 is
used, the client MUST NOT present a high confidentiality indication
for the account or connection.
3.3. Other Confidentiality Assurance Levels
This specification is not intended to limit experimentation and
innovation with respect to user confidentiality. As a result more
confidentiality assurance levels are permitted. However, levels
below "no confidentiality assurance" described in the previous
section are discouraged and implementers are cautioned that end users
may be confused by too many confidentiality assurance levels.
4. Implicit TLS
Previous standards for use of email protocols with TLS used the
STARTTLS mechanism: [RFC2595], [RFC3207], and [RFC3501]. With
STARTTLS, the client establishes a clear text application session and
determines whether to issue a STARTTLS command based on server
capabilities and client configuration. If the client issues a
STARTTLS command, a TLS handshake follows that can upgrade the
connection. While this mechanism has been deployed, an alternate
mechanism where TLS is negotiated immediately at connection start on
a separate port (referred to in this document as "Implicit TLS") has
been deployed more successfully. To increase use of TLS, this
specification recommends use of implicit TLS by new POP, IMAP and
SMTP Submission software.
4.1. Implicit TLS for POP
When a TCP connection is established for the "pop3s" service (default
port 995), a TLS handshake begins immediately. Clients MUST
implement the certificate validation mechanism described in
[RFC7817]. Once the TLS session is established, POP3 [RFC1939]
protocol messages are exchanged as TLS application data for the
remainder of the TCP connection. After the server sends a +OK
greeting, the server and client MUST enter AUTHORIZATION state, even
if client credentials were supplied during the TLS handshake.
See Section 11.1.1 for additional information on client certificate
authentication. See Section 13.3 for port registration information.
4.2. Implicit TLS for IMAP
When a TCP connection is established for the "imaps" service (default
port 993), a TLS handshake begins immediately. Clients MUST
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
implement the certificate validation mechanism described in [RFC3501]
and SHOULD implement the certificate validation mechanism described
in [RFC7817]. Once the TLS session is established, IMAP [RFC3501]
protocol messages are exchanged as TLS application data for the
remainder of the TCP connection. If client credentials were provided
during the TLS handshake that the server finds acceptable, the server
MAY issue a PREAUTH greeting in which case both the server and client
enter AUTHENTICATED state. If the server issues an OK greeting then
both server and client enter NOT AUTHENTICATED state.
See Section 11.1.1 for additional information on client certificate
authentication. See Section 13.4 for port registration information.
4.3. Implicit TLS for SMTP Submission
When a TCP connection is established for the "submissions" service
(default port 465), a TLS handshake begins immediately. Clients MUST
implement the certificate validation mechanism described in
[RFC7817]. Once a TLS session is established, message submission
protocol data [RFC6409] is exchanged as TLS application data for the
remainder of the TCP connection. (Note: the "submissions" service
name is defined in section 10.3 of this document, and follows the
usual convention that the name of a service layered on top of
Implicit TLS consists of the name of the service as used without TLS,
with an "s" appended.)
The STARTTLS mechanism on port 587 is relatively widely deployed due
to the situation with port 465 (discussed in Section 13.5). This
differs from IMAP and POP services where implicit TLS is more widely
deployed on servers than STARTTLS. It is desirable to migrate core
protocols used by MUA software to implicit TLS over time for
consistency as well as the additional reasons discussed in
Appendix A. However, to maximize use of encryption for submission it
is desirable to support both mechanisms for Message Submission over
TLS for a transition period of several years. As a result, clients
and servers SHOULD implement both STARTTLS on port 587 and implicit
TLS on port 465 for this transition period. Note that there is no
significant difference between the security properties of STARTTLS on
port 587 and implicit TLS on port 465 if the implementations are
correct and both client and server are configured to require
successful negotiation of TLS prior to message submission (as
required in Section 11.1).
Note that the submissions port provides access to a Mail Submission
Agent (MSA) as defined in [RFC6409] so requirements and
recommendations for MSAs in that document apply to the submissions
port, including the requirement to implement SMTP AUTH [RFC4954].
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
See Section 11.1.1 for additional information on client certificate
authentication. See Section 13.5 for port registration information.
4.4. Implicit TLS Connection Closure for POP, IMAP and SMTP
When a client or server wishes to close the connection, it SHOULD
initiate the exchange of TLS close alerts before TCP connection
termination. The client MAY, after sending a TLS close alert,
gracefully close the TCP connection without waiting for a TLS
response from the server.
5. Email Security Upgrading Using Security Directives
Once an improved email security mechanism is deployed and ready for
general use, it is desirable to continue using it for all future
email service. For example, TLS is widely deployed in email
software, but use of TLS is often not required. At the time this is
written, deployed mail user agents (MUAs) [RFC5598] usually make a
determination if TLS is available when an account is first configured
and may require use of TLS with that account if and only if it was
initially available. If the service provider makes TLS available
after initial client configuration, many MUAs will not notice the
change.
Alternatively, a security feature may be purely opportunistic and
thus subject to downgrade attacks. For example, at the time this was
written, most TLS stacks that support TLS 1.2 will use an older TLS
version if the peer does not support TLS 1.2 and many do so without
alerting the user of the reduced security. Thus a variety of active
attacks could cause the loss of TLS 1.2 benefits. Only if client
policy is upgraded to require TLS 1.2 can the client prevent all
downgrade attacks. However, this sort of security policy upgrade
will be ignored by most users unless it is automated.
This section describes a mechanism, called "security directives",
which is designed to permit an MUA to recognize when a service
provider has committed to provide certain server security features,
and that it's safe for the client to change its configuration for
that account to require that such features be present in future
sessions with that server. When an MUA implements both
confidentiality assurance levels and security directives, then both
the end-user and the service provider independently have the ability
to improve the end-user's confidentiality.
A security directive has the following formal syntax:
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ]
directive-name = token
directive-value = token
token = <As defined in RFC 7230>
This is a subset of the syntax used by HSTS [RFC6797] as revised in
[RFC7230]; but simplified for use by protocols other than HTTP.
6. Server Strict Transport Security Policy
Servers supporting this extension MUST advertise an STS policy. This
includes a list of security directives the server administrator has
explicitly configured as recommended for use by clients (the list MAY
be empty). When a server advertises a security directive associated
with a security facility, it is making a commitment to support that
facility (or a revised version of that facility) indefinitely and
recommending that the client save that directive with the account
configuration and require that security facility for future
connections to that server.
Server STS policy may also include a "sts-url" directive with a value
containing an https Uniform Resource Locator (URL) [RFC2818] that the
client can save and subsequently resolve for the user in the event of
a security connection problem. Server STS policy has the following
formal syntax:
sts-policy = [directive *(";" [SP] directive)]
Protocol extensions to advertise STS policy for email servers are
defined in Section 9.
The IANA Considerations Section 13 defines a registry so that more
directives can be defined in the future. Three initial directives
are defined for use by MUAs in Section 13.2: tls-version, sts-url and
tls-cert.
7. Client Storage of Email Security Directives
Before a client can consider storing any security directives, it MUST
verify that the connection to the server uses TLS, the server has
been authenticated, and any requirements for any previously saved
security directives are met. Then the client performs the following
steps for each security directive in the STS policy:
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
1. If the security directive name is not known to the client, skip
to the next directive.
2. If the security directive is already saved with the same value
(or a value considered greater than the current value in the
directive's definition), the client skips the security directive
and moves on to the next one.
3. The client verifies the connection meets the requirements of the
security directive. If the connection does not, then the
directive will not be saved.
4. If previous steps pass, the client SHOULD update the current
account configuration to save the security directive.
Once a security directive is saved, all subsequent connections to
that host require any associated security feature. For this
confidentiality protection to work as desired clients MUST NOT offer
a click-through-to-connect action when unable to achieve connection
security matching the saved security directives.
7.1. Security Directive Upgrade Example
Suppose a server advertises the "tls-version" directive name with
value "1.1". A client that successfully negotiates either TLS 1.1 or
TLS 1.2 SHOULD save this directive. The server may subsequently
change the value to "1.2". When a client with "1.1" saved value
connects and negotiates TLS 1.2, it will upgrade the saved directive
value to "1.2". However, a client that only supports TLS 1.1 will
continue to require use of TLS 1.1 and work with that server as long
as it permits TLS 1.1. This way individual clients can require the
newer/stronger protocol (e.g., TLS 1.2), while older clients can
continue to communicate securely (albeit potentially less so) using
the older protocol.
7.2. Security Policy Failures
When a security directive has been saved for connections from a
client to a server and the facility identified by that directive is
no longer available, this results in a connection failure. An MUA
SHOULD inform the user of a potential threat to their confidentiality
and offer to resolve a previously-recorded sts-url https URL if one
is available. MUAs are discouraged from offering a lightweight
option to reset or ignore directives as this defeats the benefit they
provide to end users.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
8. Recording TLS Cipher Suite in Received Header
The ESMTPS transmission type [RFC3848] provides trace information
that can indicate TLS was used when transferring mail. However, TLS
usage by itself is not a guarantee of confidentiality or security.
The TLS cipher suite provides additional information about the level
of security made available for a connection. This defines a new SMTP
"tls" Received header additional-registered-clause that is used to
record the TLS cipher suite that was negotiated for the connection.
The value included in this additional clause SHOULD be the registered
cipher suite name (e.g., TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256)
included in the TLS cipher suite registry. In the event the
implementation does not know the name of the cipher suite (a
situation that should be remedied promptly), a four-digit hexadecimal
cipher suite identifier MAY be used. The ABNF for the field follows:
tls-cipher-clause = CFWS "tls" FWS tls-cipher
tls-cipher = tls-cipher-suite-name / tls-cipher-suite-hex
tls-cipher-name = ALPHA *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_")
; as registered in IANA cipher suite registry
tls-cipher-hex = "0x" 4HEXDIG
9. Extensions for STS Policy and Reporting
This memo defines optional mechanisms for use by MUAs to communicate
saved STS policy to servers and for servers to advertise policy. One
purpose of such mechanisms is to permit servers to determine which
and how many clients have saved security directives, and thus, to
permit operators to be aware of potential impact to their users
should support for such facilities be changed. For IMAP, the
existing ID command is extended to provide this capability. For SMTP
Submission, a new CLIENT command is defined. No similar mechanism is
defined for POP in this version of the memo to keep POP simpler, but
one may be added in the future if deemed necessary.
In addition, for each of IMAP, POP, and SMTP, a new STS capability is
defined so the client can access the server's STS policy.
9.1. IMAP STS Extension
When an IMAP server advertises the STS capability, that indicates the
IMAP server implements IMAP4 ID [RFC2971] with additional field
values defined here. This is grouped with the ID command because
that is the existing IMAP mechanism for clients to report data for
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
server logging, and provides a way for the server to report the STS
policy.
sts From server to client, the argument to this ID field is the
server STS policy. Servers MUST provide this information in
response to an ID command.
saved From client to server, this is a list of security directives
the client has saved for this server (the client MAY omit the
value for the sts-url directive in this context). Servers MAY
record this information so administrators know the expected
security properties of the client and can thus act to avoid
security policy failures (e.g., by renewing server certificates on
time, etc).
policy-fail From client to server, a list including one or more
security directives the client has saved that the client was
unable to achieve. This allows clients to report errors to the
server prior to terminating the connection in the event an
acceptable security level is unavailable.
directives From client to server, this is a list of security
directive names the client supports that are not saved.
tls Server-side IMAP proxies that accept TLS connections from
clients and connect in-the-clear over a fully private secure
network to the server SHOULD use this field to report the tls-
cipher (syntax as defined in Section 8) to the server.
IMAP clients SHOULD use the IMAP ID command to report policy failures
and determine the server STS policy. Clients MAY use the ID command
to report other security directive information. IMAP servers MUST
implement the ID command at least to report STS policy to clients.
<client connected to port 993 and negotiated TLS successfully>
S: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 STS ID AUTH=PLAIN
AUTH=SCRAM-SHA-1] hello
C: a001 ID ("name" "Demo Mail" "version" "1.5" "saved"
"tls-version=1.1; tls-cert"
"directives" "tls-version=1.2")
S: * ID ("name" "Demo Server" "version" "1.7" "sts-policy"
"tls-version=1.1; tls-cert;
sts-url=https://www.example.com/security-support.html")
S: a001 OK ID completed
Example 1
This example shows a client that successfully negotiated TLS version
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
1.1 or later and verified the server's certificate as required by
IMAP. Even if the client successfully validates the server
certificate, it will not require tls-version 1.2 in the future as the
server does not advertise that version as policy. The client has not
yet saved an STS URL, but if the client successfully validated the
server certificate, it will save the provided URL.
<client connected to port 993 and negotiated TLS successfully>
S: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 DEEP ID AUTH=PLAIN
AUTH=SCRAM-SHA-1] hello
C: a001 ID ("name" "Demo Mail" "version" "1.5" "policy-failure"
"tls-cert=pkix")
S: * ID ("name" "Demo Server" "version" "1.7" "sts-policy"
"tls-version=1.1;
sts-url=<https://www.example.com/security-support.html>")
S: a001 OK ID completed
C: a002 LOGOUT
Example 2
This example shows a client that negotiated TLS, but was unable to
verify the server's certificate. The policy-failure informs the
server of this problem, at which point the client can disconnect. If
the client had previously latched a URI for security problems from
this server, it could offer to resolve that URI. However, the sts-
policy in this exchange is ignored due to the latch failure.
<IMAP Proxy connected over private network on port 143, there is
a client connected to the proxy on port 993 that negotiated TLS>
S: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 DEEP ID AUTH=PLAIN
AUTH=SCRAM-SHA-1] hello
C: a001 ID ("name" "Demo Mail" "version" "1.5" "saved"
"tls-version=1.1; tls-cert=pkix"
"tls" "TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256")
S: * ID ("name" "Demo Server" "version" "1.7" "sts-policy"
"tls-version=1.1; tls-cert=pkix;
sts-url=https://www.example.com/support.html")
S: a001 OK ID completed
Example 3
This example shows the connection from an IMAP proxy to a back-end
server. The client connected to the proxy and sent the ID command
shown in example 1, and the proxy has added the "tls" item to the ID
command so the back-end server can log the cipher suite that was used
on the connection from the client.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
9.2. POP DEEP Extension
POP servers supporting this specification MUST implement the POP3
extension mechanism [RFC2449]. POP servers MUST advertise the DEEP
capability with an argument indicating the server's DEEP status.
<client connected to port 995 and negotiated TLS successfully>
S: +OK POP server ready
C: CAPA
S: +OK Capability list follows
S: TOP
S: SASL PLAIN SCRAM-SHA-1
S: RESP-CODES
S: PIPELINING
S: UIDL
S: STS tls-version=1.2
sts-url=https://www.example.com/security-support.html>
S: .
Example 4
After verifying the TLS server certificate and issuing CAPA, the
client can save any or all of the STS policy. If the client connects
to this same server later and has a security failure, the client can
direct the user's browser to the previously-saved URL where the
service provider can provide advice to the end user.
9.3. SMTP MSTS Extension
SMTP Submission servers supporting this specification MUST implement
the MSTS SMTP extension. The name of this extension is MSTS. The
EHLO keyword value is MSTS and the sts-policy ABNF is the syntax of
the EHLO keyword parameters. This does not add parameters to the
MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands. This also adds a CLIENT command to
SMTP which is used to report client information to the server. The
formal syntax for the command follows:
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
deep-cmd = "CLIENT" 1*(SP deep-parameter)
deep-parameter = name / version / latch / policy-fail
/ directives / tls / future-extension
name = "name" SP esmtp-value
version = "version" SP esmtp-value
saved = "saved" SP directive-list
policy-fail = "policy-fail" SP directive-list
directive-list = DQUOTE [directive
*(";" [SP] directive)] DQUOTE
directives = "directives" SP directive-list
tls = "tls" SP tls-cipher
future-extension = Atom SP String
Atom = <as defined in RFC 5321>
String = <as defined in RFC 5321>
The CLIENT command parameters listed here have the same meaning as
the parameters used in the IMAP STS extension (Section 9.1). The
server responds to the CLIENT command with a "250" if the command has
correct syntax and a "501" if the command has incorrect syntax.
<client connected to port 465 and negotiated TLS successfully>
S: 220 example.com Demo SMTP Submission Server
C: EHLO client.example.com
S: 250-example.com
S: 250-8BITMIME
S: 250-PIPELINING
S: 250-DSN
S: 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN
S: 250-MSTS tls-version=1.2; tls-cert;
sts-url=<https://www.example.com/status.html>
S: 250-BURL imap
S: 250 SIZE 0
C: CLIENT name demo_submit version 1.5 saved "tls-version=1.1;
tls-cert=pkix" directives "tls-version=1.2"
S: 250 OK
Example 5
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
10. Account Setup Considerations
10.1. Use of SRV records in Establishing Configuration
This section updates [RFC6186] by changing the preference rules and
adding a new SRV service label _submissions._tcp to refer to Message
Submission with implicit TLS.
User-configurable MUAs SHOULD support use of [RFC6186] for account
setup. However, when using configuration information obtained by
this method, MUAs SHOULD default to a high confidentiality assurance
level, unless the user has explicitly requested reduced
confidentiality. This will have the effect of causing the MUA to
ignore advertised configurations that do not support TLS, even when
those advertised configurations have a higher priority than other
advertised configurations.
When using [RFC6186] configuration information, Mail User Agents
SHOULD NOT automatically establish new configurations that do not
require TLS for all servers, unless there are no advertised
configurations using TLS. If such a configuration is chosen, prior
to attempting to authenticate to the server or use the server for
message submission, the MUA SHOULD warn the user that traffic to that
server will not be encrypted and that it will therefore likely be
intercepted by unauthorized parties. The specific wording is to be
determined by the implementation, but it should adequately capture
the sense of risk given the widespread incidence of mass surveillance
of email traffic.
When establishing a new configuration for connecting to an IMAP, POP,
or SMTP Submission server, an MUA SHOULD NOT blindly trust SRV
records unless they are signed by DNSSEC and have a valid signature.
Instead, the MUA SHOULD warn the user that the DNS-advertised
mechanism for connecting to the server is not authenticated, and
request the user to manually verify the connection details by
reference to his or her mail service provider's documentation.
Similarly, an MUA MUST NOT consult SRV records to determine which
servers to use on every connection attempt, unless those SRV records
are signed by DNSSEC and have a valid signature. However, an MUA MAY
consult SRV records from time to time to determine if an MSP's server
configuration has changed, and alert the user if it appears that this
has happened. This can also serve as a means to encourage users to
upgrade their configurations to require TLS if and when their MSPs
support it.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
10.2. Certificate Pinning
During account setup, the MUA will identify servers that provide
account services such as mail access and mail submission (the
previous section describes one way to do this). The certificates for
these servers are verified using the rules described in [RFC7817] and
PKIX [RFC5280]. In the event the certificate does not validate due
to an expired certificate, lack of appropriate chain of trust or lack
of identifier match, the MUA MAY create a persistent binding between
that certificate and the saved host name for the server. This is
called certificate pinning. Certificate pinning is only appropriate
during account setup and MUST NOT be offered in response to a failed
certificate validation for an existing account. An MUA that allows
certificate pinning MUST NOT allow a certificate pinned for one
account to validate connections for other accounts.
A pinned certificate is subject to a man-in-the-middle attack at
account setup time, and lacks a mechanism to revoke or securely
refresh the certificate. Therefore use of a pinned certificate does
not provide a high confidentiality assurance and an MUA MUST NOT
indicate a high level for an account or connection using a pinned
certificate. Additional advice on certificate pinning is present in
[RFC6125].
11. Implementation Requirements
This section details requirements for implementations of electronic
mail protocol clients and servers. A requirement for a client or
server implementation to support a particular feature is not the same
thing as a requirement that a client or server running a conforming
implementation be configured to use that feature. Requirements for
Mail Service Providers (MSPs) are distinct from requirements for
protocol implementations, and are listed in a separate section.
11.1. All Implementations (Client and Server)
These requirements apply to MUAs as well as POP, IMAP and SMTP
Submission servers.
o All implementations MUST be configurable to support implicit TLS
using the TLS 1.2 protocol or later [RFC5246].
o All implementations MUST implement the recommended cipher suites
described in [RFC7525] or a future BCP or standards track revision
of that document.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o All implementations MUST be configurable to require TLS before
performing any operation other than capability discovery and
STARTTLS.
o The IMAP specification [RFC3501] is hereby modified to revoke the
second paragraph of section 11.1 and replace it with the text from
the first three bullet items in this list. See Appendix B of
[RFC7817] to see additional modifications to IMAP certificate
validation rules.
o The standard for use of TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP [RFC2595] is
modified to revoke section 2.1 and replace it with the text from
the first three bullet items in this list. See Appendix B of
[RFC7817] to see additional modifications to RFC 2595 certificate
validation rules.
o The standard for Message Submission [RFC6409] is updated to add
the first three bullet items above to section 4.3 as well as to
require implementation of the TLS server identity check as
described in [RFC7817] and PKIX [RFC5280].
11.1.1. Client Certificate Authentication
MUAs and mail servers MAY implement client certificate authentication
on the implicit TLS port. Servers MUST NOT request a client
certificate during the TLS handshake unless the server is configured
to accept some client certificates as sufficient for authentication
and the server has the ability to determine a mail server
authorization identity matching such certificates. How to make this
determination is presently implementation specific. Clients MUST NOT
provide a client certificate during the TLS handshake unless the
server requests one and the client has determined the certificate can
be safely used with that specific server, OR the client has been
explicitly configured by the user to use that particular certificate
with that server. How to make this determination is presently
implementation specific. If the server accepts the client's
certificate as sufficient for authorization, it MUST enable the SASL
EXTERNAL [RFC4422] mechanism. An IMAPS server MAY issue a PREAUTH
greeting instead of enabling SASL EXTERNAL. A client supporting
client certificate authentication with implicit TLS MUST implement
the SASL EXTERNAL [RFC4422] mechanism using the appropriate
authentication command (AUTH for POP3 [RFC5034], AUTH for SMTP
Submission [RFC4954], AUTHENTICATE for IMAP [RFC3501]).
11.2. Mail Server Implementation Requirements
These requirements apply to servers that implement POP, IMAP or SMTP
Submission.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o Servers MUST implement the DEEP extension described in Section 9
o IMAP and SMTP submission servers SHOULD implement and be
configurable to support STARTTLS. This enables discovery of new
TLS availability, and can increase usage of TLS by legacy clients.
o Servers MUST NOT advertise STARTTLS if it is unlikely to succeed
based on server configuration (e.g., there is no server
certificate installed).
o SMTP message submission servers that have negotiated TLS SHOULD
add a Received header field to the message including the tls
clause described in Section 8.
o Servers MUST be configurable to include the TLS cipher information
in any connection or user logging or auditing facility they
provide.
11.3. Mail User Agent Implementation Requirements
This section describes requirements on Mail User Agents (MUAs) using
IMAP, POP, and/or Submission protocols. Note: Requirements
pertaining to use of Submission servers are also applicable to use of
SMTP servers (e.g., port 25) for mail submission.
o User agents SHOULD indicate to users at configuration time, the
expected level of confidentiality based on appropriate security
inputs such as which security directives are pre-set, the number
of trust anchors, certificate validity, use of an extended
validation certificate, TLS version supported, and TLS cipher
suites supported by both server and client. This indication
SHOULD also be present when editing or viewing account
configuration.
o MUAs SHOULD detect when STARTTLS and/or implicit TLS becomes
available for a protocol and set the tls-version=1.1 directive if
the server advertises the tls-version=1.1 security policy after a
successful TLS negotiation.
o Whenever requested to establish any configuration that does not
require both TLS and server certificate verification to talk to a
server or account, an MUA SHOULD warn its user that his or her
mail traffic (including password, if applicable) will be exposed
to attackers, and give the user an opportunity to abort the
connection prior to transmission of any such password or traffic.
o MUAs SHOULD implement the "tls-version=1.2" security directive
(the TLS library has to provide an API that controls permissible
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
TLS versions and communicates the negotiated TLS protocol version
to the application for this to be possible).
o See Section 3 for additional requirements.
11.4. Non-configurable MUAs and nonstandard access protocols
MUAs which are not configurable to use user-specified servers MUST
implement TLS or similarly other strong encryption mechanism when
communicating with their mail servers. This generally applies to
MUAs that are pre-configured to operate with one or more specific
services, whether or not supplied by the vendor of those services.
MUAs using protocols other than IMAP, POP, and Submission to
communicate with mail servers, MUST implement TLS or other similarly
robust encryption mechanism in conjunction with those protocols.
11.5. DEEP Compliance for Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software and Services
There are multiple ways to connect an Anti-Virus and/or Anti-Spam
(AVAS) service to a mail server. Some mechanisms, such as the de-
facto milter protocol do not impact DEEP. However, some services use
an SMTP relay proxy that intercepts mail at the application layer to
perform a scan and proxy or forward to another MTA. Deploying AVAS
services in this way can cause many problems [RFC2979] including
direct interference with DEEP and confidentiality or security
reduction. An AVAS product or service is considered DEEP compliant
if all IMAP, POP and SMTP-related software it includes is DEEP
compliant and it advertises and supports all security directives that
the actual servers advertise.
Note that end-to-end email encryption prevents AVAS software and
services from using email content as part of a spam or virus
assessment. Furthermore, while DEEP high confidentiality assurance
can prevent a man-in-the-middle from introducing spam or virus
content between the MUA and Submission server, it does not prevent
other forms of client or account compromise so use of AVAS services
for submitted email remains necessary.
12. Mail Service Provider Requirements
This section details requirements for providers of IMAP, POP, and/or
SMTP submission services, for providers who claim to conform to this
specification.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
12.1. Server Requirements
Mail Service Providers MUST use server implementations that conform
to this specification.
12.2. MSPs MUST provide Submission Servers
This document updates the advice in [RFC5068] by making Implicit TLS
on port 465 the preferred submission port.
Mail Service Providers that accept mail submissions from end-users
using the Internet Protocol MUST provide one or more SMTP Submission
services, separate from the SMTP MTA services used to process
incoming mail. Those submission services MUST be configured to
support Implicit TLS on port 465 and SHOULD support STARTTLS if port
587 is used.
MSPs MAY also support submission of messages via one or more
designated SMTP servers to facilitate compatibility with legacy MUAs.
Discussion: SMTP servers used to accept incoming mail or to relay
mail are expected to accept mail in cleartext. This is incompatible
with the purpose of this memo which is to encourage encryption of
traffic between mail servers. There is no such requirement for mail
submission servers to accept mail in cleartext or without
authentication. For other reasons, use of separate SMTP submission
servers has been best practice for many years.
12.3. TLS Server Certificate Requirements
MSPs MUST maintain valid server certificates for all servers. See
[RFC7817] for the recommendations and requirements necessary to
achieve this.
If a protocol server provides service for more than one mail domain,
it MAY use a separate IP address for each domain and/or a server
certificate that advertises multiple domains. This will generally be
necessary unless and until it is acceptable to impose the constraint
that the server and all clients support the Server Name Indication
extension to TLS [RFC6066]. For more discussion of this problem, see
section 5.1 of [RFC7817].
12.4. Recommended DNS records for mail protocol servers
This section discusses not only the DNS records that are recommended,
but also implications of DNS records for server configuration and TLS
server certificates.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
12.4.1. MX records
It is recommended that MSPs advertise MX records for handling of
inbound mail (instead of relying entirely on A or AAAA records), and
that those MX records be signed using DNSSEC. This is mentioned here
only for completeness, as handling of inbound mail is out of scope
for this document.
12.4.2. SRV records
MSPs SHOULD advertise SRV records to aid MUAs in determination of
proper configuration of servers, per the instructions in [RFC6186].
MSPs SHOULD advertise servers that support Implicit TLS in preference
to those which support cleartext and/or STARTTLS operation.
12.4.3. DNSSEC
All DNS records advertised by an MSP as a means of aiding clients in
communicating with the MSP's servers, SHOULD be signed using DNSSEC.
12.4.4. TLSA records
MSPs SHOULD advertise TLSA records to provide an additional trust
anchor for public keys used in TLS server certificates. However,
TLSA records MUST NOT be advertised unless they are signed using
DNSSEC.
12.5. MSP Server Monitoring
MSPs SHOULD regularly and frequently monitor their various servers to
make sure that: TLS server certificates remain valid and are not
about to expire, TLSA records match the public keys advertised in
server certificates, are signed using DNSSEC, server configurations
are consistent with SRV advertisements, and DNSSEC signatures are
valid and verifiable. Failure to detect expired certificates and DNS
configuration errors in a timely fashion can result in significant
loss of service for an MSP's users and a significant support burden
for the MSP.
12.6. Advertisement of DEEP status
MSPs SHOULD advertise a DEEP status that includes tls11, tls-cert and
an HTTPS URL that can be used to inform clients of service outages or
problems impacting client confidentiality. Note that advertising
tls-cert is a commitment to maintain and renew server certificates.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
12.7. Require TLS
New servers and services SHOULD be configured to require TLS unless
it's necessary to support legacy clients or existing client
configurations.
12.8. Changes to Internet Facing Servers
When an MSP changes the Internet Facing Servers providing mail access
and mail submission services, including SMTP-based spam/virus
filters, it is generally necessary to support the same and/or a newer
version of TLS and the same security directives that were previously
advertised.
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Security Directive Registry
IANA shall create (has created) the registry "STS Security
Directives". This registry is a single table and will use an expert
review process [RFC5226]. Each registration will contain the
following fields:
Name: The name of the security directive. This follows the
directive-name ABNF.
Value: The permitted values of the security directive. This should
also explain if the value is optional or mandatory and what to do
if the value is not recognized.
Description: This describes the meaning of the security directive
and the conditions under which the directive is saved.
Scope: The protocols to which this security directive applies.
Presently this may be MSTS (for MUA STS), HSTS (for HTTP STS), or
ALL.
Intended Usage: One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE.
Reference: Optional reference to specification.
Submitter: The identify of the submitter or submitters.
Change Controller: The identity of the change controller for the
registration. This will be "IESG" in case of registrations in
IETF-produced documents.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
The expert reviewer will verify the directive name follows the ABNF,
and that the value and description fields are clear, unambiguous, do
not overlap existing deployed technology, do not create security
problems and appropriately considers interoperability issues. Email
security directives intended for LIMITED USE have a lower review bar
(interoperability and overlap issues are less of a concern). The
reviewer may approve a registration, reject for a stated reason or
recommend the proposal have standards track review due to importance
or difficult subtleties.
Standards-track registrations may be updated if the relevant
standards are updated as a consequence of that action. Non-
standards-track entries may be updated by the listed change
controller. The entry's name and submitter may not be changed. In
exceptional cases, any aspect of any registered entity may be updated
at the direction of the IESG (for example, to correct a conflict).
13.2. Initial Set of Security Directives
This document defines three initial security directives for the
registry as follows, and registers the two additional directives
specified in [RFC6797].
Name: tls-version
Value: Mandatory; 1.1 refers to [RFC4346] or later and 1.2 refers to
[RFC5246] or later. Future versions may be added; this is ignored
if the version is unrecognized.
Description: This directive indicates that the TLS version
negotiated must be the specified version or later. In the event
this directive is saved and only an older TLS version is
available, that results in STS policy failure.
Scope: MUA only
Intended Usage: COMMON
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change Controller: IESG
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
Name: tls-cert
Value: Optional; pkix refers to PKIX certificate validation, dane
refers to DANE certificate validation, any refers to any
validation mechanism the client considers acceptable. If no value
is provided, "any" is assumed.
Description: This directive indicates that TLS was successfully
negotiated and the server certificate was successfully verified by
the client using PKIX [RFC5280] or DANE [RFC6698] and the server
certificate identity was verified using the algorithm appropriate
for the protocol (see Section 4). This directive is saved if the
client sees this in the advertised server STS policy after
successfully negotiating TLS and verifying the certificate and
server identity. For the HSTS protocol, this directive (with the
"any" value) is implied by the presence of the Strict-Transport-
Security header, as a result it is never specified in that
protocol.
Scope: MUA only
Intended Usage: COMMON
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change Controller: IESG
Name: sts-url
Value: Mandatory for server-policy, optional for client reporting.
The value is an https URL.
Description: This directive indicates that the client SHOULD resolve
(with appropriate certificate validation) and display the URL in
the event of a policy failure.
Scope: MUA only
Intended Usage: COMMON
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Submitter: Authors of this document
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
Change Controller: IESG
Name: max-age
Value: see [RFC6797].
Description: see [RFC6797].
Scope: HSTS only
Intended Usage: COMMON
Reference: [RFC6797]
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change Controller: IESG
Name: includeSubDomains
Value: None
Description: see [RFC6797].
Scope: HSTS only
Intended Usage: COMMON
Reference: [RFC6797]
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change Controller: IESG
13.3. POP3S Port Registration Update
IANA is asked to update the registration of the TCP well-known port
995 using the following template ([RFC6335]):
Service Name: pop3s
Transport Protocol: TCP
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: POP3 over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Service Name: pop3s
Transport Protocol: TCP
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: POP3 over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
13.4. IMAPS Port Registration Update
IANA is asked to update the registration of the TCP well-known port
993 using the following template ([RFC6335]):
Service Name: imaps
Transport Protocol: TCP
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: IMAP over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Service Name: imaps
Transport Protocol: TCP
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: IMAP over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
13.5. Submissions Port Registration
IANA is asked to assign an alternate usage of port 465 in addition to
the current assignment using the following template ([RFC6335]):
Service Name: submissions
Transport Protocol: TCP
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: Message Submission over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
Service Name: submissions
Transport Protocol: TCP
Assignee: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Description: Message Submission over TLS protocol
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document once published)
This is a one time procedural exception to the rules in RFC 6335.
This requires explicit IESG approval and does not set a precedent.
Historically, port 465 was briefly registered as the "smtps" port.
This registration made no sense as the SMTP transport MX
infrastructure has no way to specify a port so port 25 is always
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
used. As a result, the registration was revoked and was subsequently
reassigned to a different service. In hindsight, the "smtps"
registration should have been renamed or reserved rather than
revoked. Unfortunately, some widely deployed mail software
interpreted "smtps" as "submissions" [RFC6409] and used that port for
email submission by default when an end-user requests security during
account setup. If a new port is assigned for the submissions
service, email software will either continue with unregistered use of
port 465 (leaving the port registry inaccurate relative to de-facto
practice and wasting a well-known port), or confusion between the de-
facto and registered ports will cause harmful interoperability
problems that will deter use of TLS for message submission. The
authors believe both of these outcomes are less desirable than a wart
in the registry documenting real-world usage of a port for two
purposes. Although STARTTLS-on-port-587 has deployed, it has not
replaced deployed use of implicit TLS submission on port 465.
13.6. STS IMAP Capability
This document adds the STS capability to the IMAP capabilities
registry. This is described in Section 9.1.
13.7. STS POP3 Capability
This document adds the STS capability to the POP3 capabilities
registry.
CAPA Tag: STS
Arguments: sts-policy
Added Commands: none
Standard Commands affected: none
Announced status / possible differences: both / may change after
STLS
Commands Valid in States: N/A
Specification Reference: This document
Discussion: See Section 9.2.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
13.8. MSTS SMTP EHLO Keyword
This document adds the MSTS EHLO Keyword to the SMTP Service
Extension registry. This is described in Section 9.3.
13.9. MAIL Parameters Additional-registered-clauses Sub-Registry
This document adds the following entry to the "Additional-registered-
clauses" sub-registry of the "MAIL Parameters" registry, created by
[RFC5321]:
Clause Name: tls
Description: Indicates the TLS cipher suite used for a transport
connection.
Syntax Summary: See tls-cipher ABNF Section 8
Reference: This document.
14. Security Considerations
This entire document is about security considerations. In general,
this is targeted to improve mail confidentiality and to mitigate
threats external to the email system such as network-level snooping
or interception; this is not intended to mitigate active attackers
who have compromised service provider systems.
It could be argued that sharing the name and version of the client
software with the server has privacy implications. Although
providing this information is not required, it is encouraged so that
mail service providers can more effectively inform end-users running
old clients that they need to upgrade to protect their security, or
know which clients to use in a test deployment prior to upgrading a
server to have higher security requirements.
15. References
15.1. Normative 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>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2449] Gellens, R., Newman, C., and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension
Mechanism", RFC 2449, DOI 10.17487/RFC2449, November 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2449>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2818, May 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC2971] Showalter, T., "IMAP4 ID extension", RFC 2971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2971, October 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2971>.
[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>.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC5034] Siemborski, R. and A. Menon-Sen, "The Post Office Protocol
(POP3) Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)
Authentication Mechanism", RFC 5034, DOI 10.17487/RFC5034,
July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5034>.
[RFC5068] Hutzler, C., Crocker, D., Resnick, P., Allman, E., and T.
Finch, "Email Submission Operations: Access and
Accountability Requirements", BCP 134, RFC 5068,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5068, November 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5068>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email
Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6186, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6186>.
[RFC6409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6409>.
[RFC6797] Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6797, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525,
May 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[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>.
[RFC7817] Melnikov, A., "Updated TLS Server Identity Check Procedure
for Email Related Protocols", RFC 7817, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7817>.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
15.2. Informative References
[RFC2595] Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP",
RFC 2595, DOI 10.17487/RFC2595, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2595>.
[RFC2979] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet
Firewalls", RFC 2979, DOI 10.17487/RFC2979, October 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2979>.
[RFC3848] Newman, C., "ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types
Registration", RFC 3848, DOI 10.17487/RFC3848, July 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3848>.
[RFC3887] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3887, September 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3887>.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4346, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4346>.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.
[RFC4954] Siemborski, R., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "SMTP Service
Extension for Authentication", RFC 4954, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4954, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4954>.
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.
[RFC5804] Melnikov, A., Ed. and T. Martin, "A Protocol for Remotely
Managing Sieve Scripts", RFC 5804, DOI 10.17487/RFC5804,
July 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5804>.
[RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698,
August 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
Appendix A. Design Considerations
This section is not normative.
The first version of this was written independently from
draft-moore-email-tls-00.txt; subsequent versions merge ideas from
both drafts.
One author of this document was also the author of RFC 2595 that
became the standard for TLS usage with POP and IMAP, and the other
author was perhaps the first to propose that idea. In hindsight both
authors now believe that that approach was a mistake. At this point
the authors believe that while anything that makes it easier to
deploy TLS is good, the desirable end state is that these protocols
always use TLS, leaving no need for a separate port for cleartext
operation except to support legacy clients while they continue to be
used. The separate port model for TLS is inherently simpler to
implement, debug and deploy. It also enables a "generic TLS load-
balancer" that accepts secure client connections for arbitrary foo-
over-TLS protocols and forwards them to a server that may or may not
support TLS. Such load-balancers cause many problems because they
violate the end-to-end principle and the server loses the ability to
log security-relevant information about the client unless the
protocol is designed to forward that information (as this
specification does for the cipher suite). However, they can result
in TLS deployment where it would not otherwise happen which is a
sufficiently important goal that it overrides the problems.
Although STARTTLS appears only slightly more complex than separate-
port TLS, we again learned the lesson that complexity is the enemy of
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
security in the form of the STARTTLS command injection vulnerability
(CERT vulnerability ID #555316). Although there's nothing inherently
wrong with STARTTLS, the fact it resulted in a common implementation
error (made independently by multiple implementers) suggests it is a
less secure architecture than Implicit TLS.
Section 7 of RFC 2595 critiques the separate-port approach to TLS.
The first bullet was a correct critique. There are proposals in the
http community to address that, and use of SRV records as described
in RFC 6186 resolves that critique for email. The second bullet is
correct as well, but not very important because useful deployment of
security layers other than TLS in email is small enough to be
effectively irrelevant. The third bullet is incorrect because it
misses the desirable option of "use and latch-on TLS if available".
The fourth bullet may be correct, but is not a problem yet with
current port consumption rates. The fundamental error was
prioritizing a perceived better design based on a mostly valid
critique over real-world deployability. But getting security and
confidentiality facilities actually deployed is so important it
should trump design purity considerations.
Port 465 is presently used for two purposes: for submissions by a
large number of clients and service providers and for the "urd"
protocol by one vendor. Actually documenting this current state is
controversial as discussed in the IANA considerations section.
However, there is no good alternative. Registering a new port for
submissions when port 465 is widely used for that purpose already
will just create interoperability problems. Registering a port
that's only used if advertised by an SRV record (RFC 6186) would not
create interoperability problems but would require all client and
server deployments and software to change significantly which is
contrary to the goal of promoting more TLS use. Encouraging use of
STARTTLS on port 587 would not create interoperability problems, but
is unlikely to have impact on current undocumented use of port 465
and makes the guidance in this document less consistent. The
remaining option is to document the current state of the world and
support future use of port 465 for submission as this increases
consistency and ease-of-deployment for TLS email submission.
Appendix B. Change Log
Changes since draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-04:
o Swap sections 5.1 and 5.3 ("Email Security Tags" and "Server DEEP
Status") as that order may aid understanding of the model. Also
rewrote parts of these two sections to try to make the model
clearer.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o Add text about versioning of security tags to make the model
clearer.
o Add example of security tag upgrade.
o Convert remaining mention of TLS 1.0 to TLS 1.1.
o Change document title from DEEP to MUA STS to align with SMTP
relay STS.
* Slight updates to abstract and introductions.
* Rename security latches/tags to security directives.
* Rename server DEEP status to STS policy.
* Change syntax to use directive-style HSTS syntax.
o Make HSTS reference normative.
o Remove SMTP DSN header as that belongs in SMTP relay STS document.
Changes since draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-03:
o Add more references to ietf-uta-email-tls-certs in implementation
requirements section.
o Replace primary reference to RFC 6125 with ietf-uta-email-tls-
certs, so move RFC 6125 to informative list for this
specification.
Changes since draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-02:
o Make reference to design considerations explicit rather than
"elsewhere in this document".
o Change provider requirement so SMTP submission services are
separate from SMTP MTA services as opposed to the previous
phrasing that required the servers be separate (which is too
restrictive).
o Update DANE SMTP reference
Changes since draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-01:
o Change text in tls11 and tls12 registrations to clarify
certificate rules, including additional PKIX and DANE references.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o Change from tls10 to tls11 (including reference) as the minimum.
o Fix typo in example 5.
o Remove open issues section; enough time has passed so not worth
waiting for more input.
Changes since draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-00:
o Update and clarify abstract
o use term confidentiality instead of privacy in most cases.
o update open issues to request input for missing text.
o move certificate pinning sub-section to account setup section and
attempt to define it more precisely.
o Add note about end-to-end encryption in AVAS section.
o swap order of DNSSEC and TLSA sub-sections.
o change meaning of 'tls10' and 'tls12' latches to require
certificate validation.
o Replace cipher suite advice with reference to RFC 7525. Change
examples to use TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as cipher
suite.
o Add text to update IMAP, POP3 and Message Submission standards
with newer TLS advice.
o Add clearer text in introduction that this does not cover SMTP
relay.
o Update references to uta-tls-certs.
o Add paragraph to Implicit TLS for SMTP Submission section
recommending that STARTTLS also be implemented.
Changes since draft-newman-email-deep-02:
o Changed "privacy assurance" to "confidentiality assurance"
o Changed "low privacy assurance" to "no confidentiality assurance"
o Attempt to improve definition of confidentiality assurance level.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o Add SHOULD indicate when MUA is showing list of mail accounts.
o Add SHOULD NOT latch tls10, tls12 tags until TLS negotiated.
o Removed sentence about deleting and re-creating the account in
latch failure section.
o Remove use of word "fallback" with respect to TLS version
negotiation.
o Added bullet about changes to Internet facing servers to MSP
section.
o minor wording improvements based on feedback
Changes since -01:
o Updated abstract, introduction and document structure to focus
more on mail user agent privacy assurance.
o Added email account privacy section, also moving section on
account setup using SRV records to that section.
o Finished writing IANA considerations section
o Remove provisional concept and instead have server explicitly list
security tags clients should latch.
o Added note that rules for the submissions port follow the same
rules as those for the submit port.
o Reference and update advice in [RFC5068].
o Fixed typo in Client Certificate Authentication section.
o Removed tls-pfs security latch and all mention of perfect forward
secrecy as it was controversial.
o Added reference to HSTS.
Changes since -00:
o Rewrote introduction to merge ideas from draft-moore-email-tls-00.
o Added Implicit TLS section, Account configuration section and IANA
port registration updates based on draft-moore-email-tls-00.
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
o Add protocol details necessary to standardize implicit TLS for
POP/IMAP/submission, using ideas from
draft-melnikov-pop3-over-tls.
o Reduce initial set of security tags based on feedback.
o Add deep status concept to allow a window for software updates to
be backed out before latches make that problematic, as well as to
provide service providers with a mechanism they can use to assist
customers in the event of a privacy failure.
o Add DNS SRV section from draft-moore-email-tls-00.
o Write most of the missing IANA considerations section.
o Rewrite most of implementation requirements section based more on
draft-moore-email-tls-00. Remove new cipher requirements for now
because those may be dealt with elsewhere.
Appendix C. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ned Freed for discussion of the initial latch concepts in
this document. Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for
draft-melnikov-pop3-over-tls-02, which was the basis of the POP3
implicit TLS text. Thanks to Russ Housley, Alexey Melnikov and Dan
Newman for review feedback. Thanks to Paul Hoffman for interesting
feedback in initial conversations about this idea.
Authors' Addresses
Keith Moore
Network Heretics
PO Box 1934
Knoxville, TN 37901
US
Email: moore@network-heretics.com
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft MUA-STS July 2016
Chris Newman
Oracle
440 E. Huntington Dr., Suite 400
Arcadia, CA 91006
US
Email: chris.newman@oracle.com
Moore & Newman Expires January 10, 2017 [Page 40]