Network Working Group J. Levine
Internet-Draft Taughannock Networks
Intended status: Standards Track September 28, 2015
Expires: March 31, 2016
Mandatory Tags for DKIM Signatures
draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02
Abstract
The DKIM protocol applies a cryptographic signature to an e-mail
message. This specification extends DKIM to allow new signature tags
that validators are required to evaluate. The first such tag
specifies a second signature that must be present for a signature to
be valid.
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 March 31, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
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.
Levine Expires March 31, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DKIM Mandatory Fields September 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Mandatory DKIM header tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Signature version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Processing mandatory tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Forward signature (!fs) tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Typical application scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
DKIM [RFC6376] defines a cryptographic header field consisting of a
series of tags and values. The values include signed hashes of some
of the header fields and part or all of the body of a message. The
signature contains a domain name that is responsible for the
signature. The signature is valid if the hashes in the signature
match the corresponding hashes of the message at validation time, the
signature is validated by a public key retrieved from that
responsible domain's DNS, and it is before the expiration time in the
signature header field.
This specification defines the syntax for new tags in a signature
header field that specify additional conditions that must be
satisfied for a signature to be valid. The first such condition
requires the presence of an additional signature from a specified
different domain. It also defines a new version 2 of the DKIM
protocol to support the new semantics of conditional signatures.
2. Definitions
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].
Syntax descriptions use Augmented BNF (ABNF)[RFC5234].
The ABNF "ALPHA", "FWS", "tag-list" and "domain-name" are defined as
in [RFC6376].
Levine Expires March 31, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DKIM Mandatory Fields September 2015
3. Mandatory DKIM header tags
The current DKIM specification defines a set of header tags, some of
which are required to appear in every signature and some of which are
optional. It also allows a signer to include private tags that don't
conflict with the registered ones. Since verifiers ignore tags that
they don't understand, new tags can only provide new information
about the message, or enable new verification schemes for signatures
that would otherwise be considered invalid.
A Mandatory Tag is a new kind of tag prefixed with an exclamation
point. Its syntax is otherwise identical to an ordinary tag.
ABNF:
tag-spec =/ [FWS] "!" tag-name [FWS] "=" [FWS] tag-value [FWS]
3.1. Signature version numbers
Any DKIM signature with a mandatory tag MUST have version "2" in the
signature's version tag.
All valid DKIM version 1 signatures are also valid version 2
signatures, with "v=1" replaced by "v=2" in the DKIM-Signature
header. Signatures without mandatory tags SHOULD continue to use
version "1" for backward compatibility.
3.2. Processing mandatory tags
When a verifier encounters a mandatory tag in a signature, it MUST
process the tag according to the tag's definition. If the verifier
is unable to process the tag the verifier MUST return PERMFAIL for
that signature. If there are multiple signatures on a message, the
verifier continues to verify other signatures as usual. It is valid
to have a mixture of version "1" and version "2" signatures on a
single message.
3.3. Forward signature (!fs) tag
The "!fs" mandatory tag means that the signature is only valid if an
additional signature is present in the message. The value of the !fs
tag is a domain name that is the value of the d= tag of the
additional signature. The condition is satisfied if the message
includes at least one valid DKIM signature header field with
responsible domain (the d= tag) being one specified by the !fs tag.
Levine Expires March 31, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DKIM Mandatory Fields September 2015
Chained !fs tags are valid and may be useful in scenarios with
multiple levels of forwarders. DKIM verifiers SHOULD handle at least
three levels of !fs chaining.
4. Typical application scenario
A sender that expects a message to be forwarded might put both a
conventional DKIM signature and a signature with a !fs tag that
refers to the domain name of the expected forwarder. At the time the
message is forwarded, the forwarder uses the conventional signature
to assess the message, edits the message, and then signs the outgoing
message with its own signature. Subsequent recipients observe both
the forwarder's signature and the signature with the !fs tag that
matches the other signature, and use either or both to assess the
message. If a message arrives with signature containing a !fs but no
forwarding signature, the recipient would ignore that signature.
That signature would typically be a "weak" signature that covers the
From, To, Date, and Message-ID headers but does not cover the Subject
header or the message body, so that it would remain valid even if the
forwarder makes changes typical of forwarders such as mailing lists.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add this entry to the "DKIM-Signature Tag
Specifications" registry.
+------+-----------------+--------+
| TYPE | REFERENCE | STATUS |
+------+-----------------+--------+
| !fs | (this document) | active |
+------+-----------------+--------+
Table 1: DKIM-Signature Tag Specifications additions
6. Security Considerations
DKIM was designed to provide assurances that a message with a valid
signature was received in essentially the same form that it was sent.
The forwarding signature condition deliberately creates a loophole
for messages intended to be forwarded by entities that edit the
message. It opens up a variety of obvious replay attacks that may or
may not be important depending on both the selection of target
domains for messages to be forwarded, and the behavior of forwarders
that receive messages with conditional signatures.
A sender can limit the conceptual size of the loophole by being
selective about what other domains it allows in its !fs tags, and by
Levine Expires March 31, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DKIM Mandatory Fields September 2015
using the x= tag to limit the time during which forwarded signatures
are valid.
7. Change Log
Please remove this section before publication.
7.1. -01 to -02
Change tag character from @ to ! per Murray.
Add suggestions about limiting the forwarding loophole.
8. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
Author's Address
John Levine
Taughannock Networks
PO Box 727
Trumansburg, NY 14886
Phone: +1 831 480 2300
Email: standards@taugh.com
URI: http://jl.ly
Levine Expires March 31, 2016 [Page 5]