Using TLS in Applications D. Margolis
Internet-Draft M. Risher
Intended status: Standards Track Google, Inc
Expires: January 2, 2018 B. Ramakrishnan
Yahoo!, Inc
A. Brotman
Comcast, Inc
J. Jones
Microsoft, Inc
June 29, 2017
SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS)
draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-07
Abstract
SMTP Mail Transfer Agent Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) is a
mechanism enabling mail service providers to declare their ability to
receive Transport Layer Security (TLS) secure SMTP connections, and
to specify whether sending SMTP servers should refuse to deliver to
MX hosts that do not offer TLS with a trusted server certificate.
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 2, 2018 .
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Related Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Policy Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. MTA-STS TXT Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. MTA-STS Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. HTTPS Policy Fetching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Policy Selection for Smart Hosts and Subdomains . . . . . 7
4. Policy Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. MX Certificate Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Policy Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Policy Application Control Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Policy Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Well-Known URIs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. MTA-STS TXT Record Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. MTA-STS Policy Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Obtaining a Signed Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Preventing Policy Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. Weak Policy Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Appendix 1: MTA-STS example record & policy . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Appendix 2: Message delivery pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The STARTTLS extension to SMTP [RFC3207] allows SMTP clients and
hosts to negotiate the use of a TLS channel for encrypted mail
transmission.
While this opportunistic encryption protocol by itself provides a
high barrier against passive man-in-the-middle traffic interception,
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
any attacker who can delete parts of the SMTP session (such as the
"250 STARTTLS" response) or who can redirect the entire SMTP session
(perhaps by overwriting the resolved MX record of the delivery
domain) can perform downgrade or interception attacks.
This document defines a mechanism for recipient domains to publish
policies specifying:
o whether MTAs sending mail to this domain can expect PKIX-
authenticated TLS support
o what a conforming client should do with messages when TLS cannot
be successfully negotiated
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
We also define the following terms for further use in this document:
o MTA-STS Policy: A commitment by the Policy Domain to support PKIX
authenticated TLS for the specified MX hosts.
o Policy Domain: The domain for which an MTA-STS Policy is defined.
This is the next-hop domain; when sending mail to
"alice@example.com" this would ordinarly be "example.com", but
this may be overriden by explicit routing rules (as described in
Section 3.4, "Policy Selection for Smart Hosts and Subdomains").
2. Related Technologies
The DANE TLSA record [RFC7672] is similar, in that DANE is also
designed to upgrade unauthenticated encryption or plaintext
transmission into authenticated, downgrade-resistent encrypted
tarnsmission. DANE requires DNSSEC [RFC4033] for authentication; the
mechanism described here instead relies on certificate authorities
(CAs) and does not require DNSSEC, at a cost of risking malicious
downgrades. For a thorough discussion of this trade-off, see
Section 8, "Security Considerations".
In addition, MTA-STS provides an optional report-only mode, enabling
soft deployments to detect policy failures; partial deployments can
be achieved in DANE by deploying TLSA records only for some of a
domain's MXs, but such a mechanism is not possible for the per-domain
policies used by MTA-STS.
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
The primary motivation of MTA-STS is to provide a mechanism for
domains to upgrade their transport security even when deploying
DNSSEC is undesirable or impractical. However, MTA-STS is designed
not to interfere with DANE deployments when the two overlap; in
particular, senders who implement MTA-STS validation MUST NOT allow a
"valid" or "report-only" MTA-STS validation to override a failing
DANE validation.
3. Policy Discovery
MTA-STS policies are distributed via HTTPS from a "well-known"
[RFC5785] path served within the Policy Domain, and their presence
and current version are indicated by a TXT record at the Policy
Domain. These TXT records additionally contain a policy "id" field,
allowing sending MTAs to check the currency of a cached policy
without performing an HTTPS request.
To discover if a recipient domain implements MTA-STS, a sender need
only resolve a single TXT record. To see if an updated policy is
available for a domain for which the sender has a previously cached
policy, the sender need only check the TXT record's version "id"
against the cached value.
3.1. MTA-STS TXT Records
The MTA-STS TXT record is a TXT record with the name "_mta-sts" at
the Policy Domain. For the domain "example.com", this record would
be "_mta-sts.example.com". MTA-STS TXT records MUST be US-ASCII,
semicolon-separated key/value pairs containing the following fields:
o "v": (plain-text, required). Currently only "STSv1" is supported.
o "id": (plain-text, required). A short string used to track policy
updates. This string MUST uniquely identify a given instance of a
policy, such that senders can determine when the policy has been
updated by comparing to the "id" of a previously seen policy.
There is no implied ordering of "id" fields between revisions.
An example TXT record is as below:
"_mta-sts.example.com. IN TXT "v=STSv1; id=20160831085700Z;""
The formal definition of the "_mta-sts" TXT record, defined using
[RFC5234], is as follows:
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
sts-text-record = sts-version *WSP field-delim *WSP sts-id
[field-delim [sts-extensions]]
field-delim = %x3B ; ";"
sts-version = %x76 *WSP "=" *WSP %x53 %x54 ; "v=STSv1"
%x53 %x76 %x31
sts-id = %x69 %x64 *WSP "="
*WSP 1*32(ALPHA / DIGIT) ; "id="
sts-extensions = sts-extension *(field-delim sts-extension)
[field-delim] ; extension fields
sts-extension = sts-ext-name *WSP "=" *WSP sts-ext-value
sts-ext-name = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *31(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".")
sts-ext-value = 1*(%x21-3A / %x3C / %x3E-7E) ; chars excluding
; "=", ";", SP, and
; control chars
If multiple TXT records for "_mta-sts" are returned by the resolver,
records which do not begin with "v=STSv1;" are discarded. If the
number of resulting records is not one, senders MUST assume the
recipient domain does not implement MTA-STS and skip the remaining
steps of policy discovery.
3.2. MTA-STS Policies
The policy itself is a JSON [RFC7159] object served via the HTTPS GET
method from the fixed [RFC5785] "well-known" path of ".well-known/
mta-sts.json" served by the "mta-sts" host at the Policy Domain.
Thus for "example.com" the path is "https://mta-sts.example.com
/.well-known/mta-sts.json".
This JSON object contains the following key/value pairs:
o "version": (plain-text, required). Currently only "STSv1" is
supported.
o "mode": (plain-text, required). Either "enforce" or "report",
indicating the expected behavior of a sending MTA in the case of a
policy validation failure.
o "max_age": Max lifetime of the policy (plain-text non-negative
integer seconds, required). Well-behaved clients SHOULD cache a
policy for up to this value from last policy fetch time. To
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
mitigate the risks of attacks at policy refresh time, it is
expected that this value typically be in the range of weeks or
greater.
o "mx": MX identity patterns (list of plain-text strings, required).
One or more patterns matching a Common Name ([RFC6125]) or Subject
Alternative Name ([RFC5280]) DNS-ID present in the X.509
certificate presented by any MX receiving mail for this domain.
For example, "["mail.example.com", ".example.net"]" indicates that
mail for this domain might be handled by any MX with a certificate
valid for a host at "mail.example.com" or "example.net". Valid
patterns can be either fully specified names ("example.com") or
suffixes (".example.net") matching the right-hand parts of a
server's identity; the latter case are distinguished by a leading
period. In the case of Internationalized Domain Names
([RFC5891]), the MX MUST specify the Punycode-encoded A-label
[RFC3492] and not the Unicode-encoded U-label. The full semantics
of certificate validation are described in Section 4.1, "MX
Certificate Validation."
An example JSON policy is as below:
{
"version": "STSv1",
"mode": "enforce",
"mx": [".mail.example.com"],
"max_age": 123456
}
Parsers MUST accept TXT records and policy files which are
syntactically valid (i.e. valid key-value pairs separated by semi-
colons for TXT records and valid JSON for policy files) and
implementing a superset of this specification, in which case unknown
fields SHALL be ignored.
3.3. HTTPS Policy Fetching
When fetching a new policy or updating a policy, the HTTPS endpoint
MUST present a X.509 certificate which is valid for the "mta-sts"
host (as described below), chain to a root CA that is trusted by the
sending MTA, and be non-expired. It is expected that sending MTAs
use a set of trusted CAs similar to those in widely deployed Web
browsers and operating systems.
The certificate is valid for the "mta-sts" host with respect to the
rules described in [RFC6125], with the following application-specific
considerations:
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
o Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID and CN-ID
identifiers.
o DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard
character '*' as the complete left-most label within the
identifier.
The certificate MAY be checked for revocation via the Online
Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560], certificate revocation
lists (CRLs), or some other mechanism.
HTTP 3xx redirects MUST NOT be followed.
Senders may wish to rate-limit the frequency of attempts to fetch the
HTTPS endpoint even if a valid TXT record for the recipient domain
exists. In the case that the HTTPS GET fails, we suggest
implementions may limit further attempts to a period of five minutes
or longer per version ID, to avoid overwhelming resource-constrained
recipients with cascading failures.
Senders MAY impose a timeout on the HTTPS GET and/or a limit on the
maximum size of the response body to avoid long delays or resource
exhaustion during attempted policy updates. A suggested timeout is
one minute, and a suggested maximum policy size 64 kilobytes; policy
hosts SHOULD respond to requests with a complete policy body within
that timeout and size limit.
If a valid TXT record is found but no policy can be fetched via HTTPS
(for any reason), and there is no valid (non-expired) previously-
cached policy, senders MUST continue with delivery as though the
domain has not implemented MTA-STS. Senders who implement TLSRPT
(TODO: add ref) should, however, report this failure to the recipient
domain if the domain implements TLSRPT as well.
Conversely, if no "live" policy can be discovered via DNS or fetched
via HTTPS, but a valid (non-expired) policy exists in the sender's
cache, the sender MUST apply that cached policy.
3.4. Policy Selection for Smart Hosts and Subdomains
When sending mail via a "smart host"--an intermediate SMTP relay
rather than the message recipient's server--compliant senders MUST
treat the smart host domain as the policy domain for the purposes of
policy discovery and application.
When sending mail to a mailbox at a subdomain, compliant senders MUST
NOT attempt to fetch a policy from the parent zone. Thus for mail
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
sent to "user@mail.example.com", the policy can be fetched only from
"mail.example.com", not "example.com".
4. Policy Validation
When sending to an MX at a domain for which the sender has a valid
and non-expired MTA-STS policy, a sending MTA honoring MTA-STS MUST
validate:
1. That the recipient MX supports STARTTLS and offers a valid PKIX-
based TLS certificate.
2. That at least one of the policy's "mx" patterns matches at least
one of the identities presented in the MX's X.509 certificate, as
described in "MX Certificate Validation".
This section does not dictate the behavior of sending MTAs when
policies fail to validate; in particular, validation failures of
policies which specify "report" mode MUST NOT be interpreted as
delivery failures, as described in Section 5, "Policy Application".
4.1. MX Certificate Validation
The certificate presented by the receiving MX MUST chain to a root CA
that is trusted by the sending MTA and be non-expired. The
certificate MUST have a CN-ID ([RFC6125]) or SAN ([RFC5280]) with a
DNS-ID matching the "mx" pattern. The MX's certificate MAY also be
checked for revocation via OCSP [RFC2560], certificate revocation
lists (CRLs), or some other mechanism.
Because the "mx" patterns are not hostnames, however, matching is not
identical to other common cases of X.509 certificate authentication
(as described, for example, in [RFC6125]). Consider the example
policy given above, with an "mx" pattern containing ".example.net".
In this case, if the MX server's X.509 certificate contains a SAN
matching "*.example.net", we are required to implement "wildcard-to-
wildcard" matching.
To simplify this case, we impose the following constraints on
wildcard certificates, identical to those in [RFC7672] section 3.2.3
and [@!RFC6125 section 6.4.3: wildcards are valid in DNS-IDs or CN-
IDs, but must be the entire first label of the identifier (that is,
"*.example.com", not "mail*.example.com"). Senders who are comparing
a "suffix" MX pattern with a wildcard identifier should thus strip
the wildcard and ensure that the two sides match label-by-label,
until all labels of the shorter side (if unequal length) are
consumed.
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
A simple pseudocode implementation of this algorithm is presented in
the Appendix.
5. Policy Application
When sending to an MX at a domain for which the sender has a valid,
non-expired MTA-STS policy, a sending MTA honoring MTA-STS applies
the result of a policy validation failure one of two ways, depending
on the value of the policy "mode" field:
1. "report": In this mode, sending MTAs merely send a report (as
described in the TLSRPT specification (TODO: add ref)) indicating
policy application failures.
2. "enforce": In this mode, sending MTAs MUST NOT deliver the
message to hosts which fail MX matching or certificate
validation.
When a message fails to deliver due to an "enforce" policy, a
compliant MTA MUST NOT permanently fail to deliver messages before
checking for the presence of an updated policy at the Policy Domain.
(In all cases, MTAs SHOULD treat such failures as transient errors
and retry delivery later.) This allows implementing domains to
update long-lived policies on the fly.
Finally, in both "enforce" and "report" modes, failures to deliver in
compliance with the applied policy result in failure reports to the
policy domain, as described in the TLSRPT specification (TODO: add
ref).
5.1. Policy Application Control Flow
An example control flow for a compliant sender consists of the
following steps:
1. Check for a cached policy whose time-since-fetch has not exceeded
its "max_age". If none exists, attempt to fetch a new policy
(perhaps asynchronously, so as not to block message delivery).
Optionally, sending MTAs may unconditionally check for a new
policy at this step.
2. For each candidate MX, in order of MX priority, attempt to
deliver the message, enforcing STARTTLS and, assuming a policy is
present, PKIX certificate validation as described in Section 4.1,
"MX Certificate Validation."
3. A message delivery MUST NOT be permanently failed until the
sender has first checked for the presence of a new policy (as
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
indicated by the "id" field in the "_mta-sts" TXT record). If a
new policy is not found, existing rules for the case of temporary
message delivery failures apply (as discussed in [RFC5321]
section 4.5.4.1).
6. Operational Considerations
6.1. Policy Updates
Updating the policy requires that the owner make changes in two
places: the "_mta-sts" TXT record in the Policy Domain's DNS zone and
at the corresponding HTTPS endpoint. As a result, recipients should
expect a policy will continue to be used by senders until both the
HTTPS and TXT endpoints are updated and the TXT record's TTL has
passed.
In other words, a sender who is unable to successfully deliver a
message while applying a cache of the recipient's now-outdated policy
may be unable to discover that a new policy exists until the DNS TTL
has passed. Recipients should therefore ensure that old policies
continue to work for message delivery during this period of time, or
risk message delays.
Recipients should also prefer to update the HTTPS policy body before
updating the TXT record; this ordering avoids the risk that senders,
seeing a new TXT record, mistakenly cache the old policy from HTTPS.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Well-Known URIs Registry
A new .well-known URI will be registered in the Well-Known URIs
registry as described below:
URI Suffix: mta-sts.json Change Controller: IETF
7.2. MTA-STS TXT Record Fields
IANA is requested to create a new registry titled "MTA-STS TXT Record
Fields". The initial entries in the registry are:
+------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| Field Name | Description | Reference |
+------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| v | Record version | Section 3.1 of RFC XXX |
| id | Policy instance ID | Section 3.1 of RFC XXX |
+------------+--------------------+------------------------+
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
New fields are added to this registry using IANA's "Expert Review"
policy.
7.3. MTA-STS Policy Fields
IANA is requested to create a new registry titled "MTA-STS Policy
Fields". The initial entries in the registry are:
+------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Field Name | Description | Reference |
+------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| version | Policy version | Section 3.2 of RFC XXX |
| mode | Enforcement behavior | Section 3.2 of RFC XXX |
| max_age | Policy lifetime | Section 3.2 of RFC XXX |
| mx | MX identities | Section 3.2 of RFC XXX |
+------------+----------------------+------------------------+
New fields are added to this registry using IANA's "Expert Review"
policy.
8. Security Considerations
SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security attempts to protect against an
active attacker who wishes to intercept or tamper with mail between
hosts who support STARTTLS. There are two classes of attacks
considered:
o Foiling TLS negotiation, for example by deleting the "250
STARTTLS" response from a server or altering TLS session
negotiation. This would result in the SMTP session occurring over
plaintext, despite both parties supporting TLS.
o Impersonating the destination mail server, whereby the sender
might deliver the message to an impostor, who could then monitor
and/or modify messages despite opportunistic TLS. This
impersonation could be accomplished by spoofing the DNS MX record
for the recipient domain, or by redirecting client connections
intended for the legitimate recipient server (for example, by
altering BGP routing tables).
MTA-STS can thwart such attacks only if the sender is able to
previously obtain and cache a policy for the recipient domain, and
only if the attacker is unable to obtain a valid certificate that
complies with that policy. Below, we consider specific attacks on
this model.
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
8.1. Obtaining a Signed Certificate
SMTP MTA-STS relies on certificate validation via PKIX based TLS
identity checking [RFC6125]. Attackers who are able to obtain a
valid certificate for the targeted recipient mail service (e.g. by
compromising a certificate authority) are thus able to circumvent STS
authentication.
8.2. Preventing Policy Discovery
Since MTA-STS uses DNS TXT records for policy discovery, an attacker
who is able to block DNS responses can suppress the discovery of an
MTA-STS Policy, making the Policy Domain appear not to have an MTA-
STS Policy. The sender policy cache is designed to resist this
attack by decreasing the frequency of policy discovery and thus
reducing the window of vulnerability; it is nonetheless a risk that
attackers who can predict or induce policy discovery--for example, by
inducing a victim sending domain to send mail to a never-before-
contacted recipient while carrying out a man-in-the-middle attack--
may be able to foil policy discovery and effectively downgrade the
security of the message delivery.
Since this attack depends upon intercepting initial policy discovery,
we strongly recommend implementors to prefer policy "max_age" values
to be as long as is practical.
Because this attack is also possible upon refresh of a cached policy,
we suggest implementors do not wait until a cached policy has expired
before checking for an update; if senders attempt to refresh the
cache regularly (for instance, by checking their cached version
string against the TXT record on each successful send, or in a
background task that runs daily or weekly), an attacker would have to
foil policy discovery consistently over the lifetime of a cached
policy to prevent a successful refresh.
Resistence to downgrade attacks of this nature--due to the ability to
authoritatively determine "lack of a record" even for non-
participating recipients--is a feature of DANE, due to its use of
DNSSEC for policy discovery.
8.3. Denial of Service
We additionally consider the Denial of Service risk posed by an
attacker who can modify the DNS records for a victim domain. Absent
MTA-STS, such an attacker can cause a sending MTA to cache invalid MX
records, but only for however long the sending resolver caches those
records. With MTA-STS, the attacker can additionally advertise a
new, long-"max_age" MTA-STS policy with "mx" constraints that
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
validate the malicious MX record, causing senders to cache the policy
and refuse to deliver messages once the victim has resecured the MX
records.
This attack is mitigated in part by the ability of a victim domain to
(at any time) publish a new policy updating the cached, malicious
policy, though this does require the victim domain to both obtain a
valid CA-signed certificate and to understand and properly configure
MTA-STS.
Similarly, we consider the possibility of domains that deliberately
allow untrusted users to serve untrusted content on user-specified
subdomains. In some cases (e.g. the service Tumblr.com) this takes
the form of providing HTTPS hosting of user-registered subdomains; in
other cases (e.g. dynamic DNS providers) this takes the form of
allowing untrusted users to register custom DNS records at the
provider's domain.
In these cases, there is a risk that untrusted users would be able to
serve custom content at the "mta-sts" host, including serving an
illegitimate MTA-STS policy. We believe this attack is rendered more
difficult by the need for the attacker to also serve the "_mta-sts"
TXT record on the same domain--something not, to our knowledge,
widely provided to untrusted users. This attack is additionally
mitigated by the aforementioned ability for a victim domain to update
an invalid policy at any future date.
8.4. Weak Policy Constraints
Even if an attacker cannot modify a served policy, the potential
exists for configurations that allow attackers on the same domain to
receive mail for that domain. For example, an easy configuration
option when authoring an MTA-STS Policy for "example.com" is to set
the "mx" equal to ".example.com"; recipient domains must consider in
this case the risk that any user possessing a valid hostname and CA-
signed certificate (for example, "dhcp-123.example.com") will, from
the perspective of MTA-STS Policy validation, be a valid MX host for
that domain.
9. Contributors
Nicolas Lidzborski Google, Inc nlidz (at) google (dot com)
Wei Chuang Google, Inc weihaw (at) google (dot com)
Brandon Long Google, Inc blong (at) google (dot com)
Franck Martin LinkedIn, Inc fmartin (at) linkedin (dot com)
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
Klaus Umbach 1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH
klaus.umbach (at) 1und1 (dot de)
Markus Laber 1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH
markus.laber (at) 1und1 (dot de)
10. Appendix 1: MTA-STS example record & policy
The owner of "example.com" wishes to begin using MTA-STS with a
policy that will solicit reports from senders without affecting how
the messages are processed, in order to verify the identity of MXs
that handle mail for "example.com", confirm that TLS is correctly
used, and ensure that certificates presented by the recipient MX
validate.
MTA-STS policy indicator TXT RR:
_mta-sts.example.com. IN TXT "v=STSv1; id=20160831085700Z;"
MTA-STS Policy JSON served as the response body at [1]
{
"version": "STSv1",
"mode": "report",
"mx": ["mx1.example.com", "mx2.example.com"],
"max_age": 12345678
}
11. Appendix 2: Message delivery pseudocode
Below is pseudocode demonstrating the logic of a compliant sending
MTA.
While this pseudocode implementation suggests synchronous policy
retrieval in the delivery path, in a working implementation that may
be undesirable, and we expect some implementors to instead prefer a
background fetch that does not block delivery if no cached policy is
present.
func isEnforce(policy) {
// Return true if the policy mode is "enforce".
}
func isNonExpired(policy) {
// Return true if the policy is not expired.
}
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
func tryStartTls(connection) {
// Attempt to open an SMTP connection with STARTTLS with the MX.
}
func certMatches(connection, policy) {
// Assume a handy function to return CN and DNS-ID SANs.
for san in getDnsIdSansAndCnFromCert(connection) {
for mx in policy.mx {
// Return if the server certificate from "connection" matches the "mx" host.
if san[0] == '*' {
// Invalid wildcard!
if san[1] != '.' continue
san = san[1:]
}
if san[0] == '.' && HasSuffix(mx, san) {
return true
}
if mx[0] == '.' && HasSuffix(san, mx) {
return true
}
if mx == san {
return true
}
}
}
return false
}
func tryDeliverMail(connection, message) {
// Attempt to deliver "message" via "connection".
}
func tryGetNewPolicy(domain) {
// Check for an MTA-STS TXT record for "domain" in DNS, and return the
// indicated policy.
}
func cachePolicy(domain, policy) {
// Store "policy" as the cached policy for "domain".
}
func tryGetCachedPolicy(domain) {
// Return a cached policy for "domain".
}
func reportError(error) {
// Report an error via TLSRPT.
}
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
func tryMxAccordingTo(message, mx, policy) {
connection := connect(mx)
if !connection {
return false // Can't connect to the MX so it's not an MTA-STS error.
}
secure := true
if !tryStartTls(connection) {
secure = false
reportError(E_NO_VALID_TLS)
} else if !certMatches(connection, policy) {
secure = false
reportError(E_CERT_MISMATCH)
}
if secure || !isEnforce(policy) {
return tryDeliverMail(connection, message)
}
return false
}
func tryWithPolicy(message, domain, policy) {
mxes := getMxForDomain(domain)
for mx in mxes {
if tryMxAccordingTo(message, mx, policy) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
func handleMessage(message) {
domain := ... // domain part after '@' from recipient
policy := tryGetNewPolicy(domain)
if policy {
cachePolicy(domain, policy)
} else {
policy = tryGetCachedPolicy(domain)
}
if policy {
return tryWithPolicy(message, domain, policy)
}
// Try to deliver the message normally (i.e. without MTA-STS).
}
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
12. References
12.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, DOI 10
.17487/RFC2560, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2560>.
[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>.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, DOI 10
.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5891, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
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>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[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>.
12.2. URIs
[1] https://mta-sts.example.com/.well-known/mta-sts.json:
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Margolis
Google, Inc
Email: dmargolis (at) google.com
Mark Risher
Google, Inc
Email: risher (at) google (dot com)
Binu Ramakrishnan
Yahoo!, Inc
Email: rbinu (at) yahoo-inc (dot com)
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MTA-STS June 2017
Alexander Brotman
Comcast, Inc
Email: alex_brotman (at) comcast.com
Janet Jones
Microsoft, Inc
Email: janet.jones (at) microsoft (dot com)
Margolis, et al. Expires January 2, 2018 [Page 19]