I just released 2.5.2 build 16273 at CVS test folder http://assp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/assp/assp2/test/
This release should make a very large difference for SSL/TLS mails sent by hosts that uses small SSL-frame size. Tell me your test results. Thomas Von: K Post <nntp.p...@gmail.com> An: ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> Datum: 28.09.2016 19:42 Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Inbound TLS from gmail.com addresses / servers But I want a postman driving a Ferarri with monster truck tires that can roll over the traffic (and if wishes are being granted, I'd prefer the car in a deep blue instead of classic red). We regularly see people attaching large files or a bunch of smaller ones that add up to a big email, I'm talking lots and lots of different people from outside the organization sending to us, and this happens on a daily basis. It's especially popular with photos and huge scans multi-page 600dpi (which people don't understand can be done at low resolution). Often it's people sending in scanned official documents for us to review an help them. They're not our staff, they're the people we help. They have a tendency of not following any instructions, and ignore the fact that we have a web based system for the process. We can't control it and the powers that be don't want us lowering the 30 MB threshold across the board. Lot of these people use gmail.com addresses and google allows for up to 25 MB - https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6584 I think it's really interesting that google seems to use this inefficient small packet size for SSL, allows for 25MB emails, is a big proponent of SSL, and at the same time doesn't allow mails to take more than 15 minutes to transfer. Now that you've made things >much< more efficient on the ASSP side, I'm hoping that all will be okay. I just get annoyed by inefficiency. I'm going to tryrunning with npSize of zero, the no queuing size set very high and see how that goes. I want to insure that even the biggest emails are scanned for malware before hitting the inbox. I've never said this before, but it seems like google's doing it wrong. I think we've exhausted our options here. If anyone has a Google engineering friend, or a friend of a friend, this might be a good time to have a little chat in an effort to reach someone who can either explain why they're use a 1.4 kB frame size for ssl packets, but a normal much bigger size for non-encrypted traffic or to get them to see an error in their ways and fix this! Thank you again for all of the discussion and explanation and of course the code changes which have made a huge difference. On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Thomas Eckardt <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com > wrote: > >I'm still afraid of running into frequent problems with 25mb attachments > though. > > 25MB - I don't know anyone who allows this. Sending a link to a download > is much smarter. > ASSP_AFC has an option to do this for your outgoing mails! - > ASSP_AFCWebScript > > >Can someone else run a debug test with Gmail and TLS to see if you're > seeing these tiny packets too? > > I've done it - same behavior - 1400 byte per SSL frame from gmail. > > > >Would it be an easy modification to show the negotiated cipher in the > > ASSP does this for years now - simply look in to the received header line > added by assp. > > -- -- -- Received: from vs10241.internet1.de ([158.181.49.77] > helo=vs10241.internet1.de) > by xxxxxx with SMTPS(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (2.5.2); > 24 Jul 2016 05:34:12 +0200 > > if you set 'ConnectionLog' at least to verbose, you'll see the > SSL-negotiation results in maillog.txt. > > info: started TLS-SSL session for client $cliIP - using > $Con{$ssls}->{sslversion} , $Con{$ssls}->{sslcipher} > > >what other options are there? > > Set 'EnableHighPerformance' to very high. > > >Are you sure that negotiating a lesser cipher with Gmail wouldn't have > them switch to sending larger SSL packets? > > Yes, I'm 100% sure. > > An SSL peer is free to use any SSL frame size between 1 byte and 16kB. > There is no SSL-negotiation parameter for min or max frame size. > If gmail.com sends 1.4kB frames, they are free to do it this way. There is > no technical way to force them to send larger frames. > > >If neverQueue is set to 12MB, am I correct in saying that we're open to a > targeted exploit, say an .exe in a .zip as long as the email is more than > 12MB? > > Yes, you are correct. > > >or is that just after the whole message is received? > > Yes, after the complete mail is received. > > It is like it is - if the postman with his Ferrari is in a traffic jam, > you'll have to wait longer for your letter or you'll get it the next day. > > > Thomas > > > > Von: K Post <nntp.p...@gmail.com> > An: ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > Datum: 28.09.2016 17:03 > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Inbound TLS from gmail.com addresses / > servers > > > > Thanks again for the detailed explanation. > > 10% faster is terrific, and it's more than 50% faster since before 16270. > I'm still afraid of running into frequent problems with 25mb attachments > though. Yes, that's too big for email in our opinion, but Gmail allows it > as do most ISP's these days. It's not terribly unusual for us to have a a > person try to send and email with four or five 4 MB photos - and we can't > stop that trend. That'll translate into a message somewhere in the range > of 22-25 MB. I'm not sure if we're fast enough to >consistently< receive > these. And on top of that, if it's an outside big wig, emailing an inside > big wig, they don't have 15 minutes to waste waiting for the big email to > arrive. Then they yell at me, which is why I keep asking more of these > questions -- and there's a lot of them here (sorry) > > > *Are you sure that negotiating a lesser cipher with Gmail wouldn't have > them switch to sending larger SSL packets? * I have a solid high level > understanding of encryption, but once you get down the the packet level, > I'm a bit out of my depth, despite what I've learned from your excellent > explanations. > > > Can someone else run a debug test with Gmail and TLS to see if you're > seeing these tiny packets too? I keep going back to *not being able to > believe that Google doing something that was any slower than necessary. * > They > try to optimize everything and are huge proponents of SSL everywhere. If > they're sending tons of tiny un-optimized packets, there's got to be a > reason or cause. I can't imagine that it's a default and deliberate > setting. I tried calling US support, but this is a network engineering > type of issue - no chance of me getting through to someone there who even > understands the question. > > The npSize option and neverQueueSize, only affects things after the whole > message is received right? * It's not like it's doing something > significantly extra at each SSL cylce is it except using up RAM right??* > My unscientific tests are shower marginally slower speeds when receiving > large email from Google with TLS on and neverQueueSize set crazy high, so > maybe I'm wrong. Being that this same message through outlook.com only > takes 30 seconds, even with npSize set to 0 (unlimited) and neverQueueSize > = 999,000,000, I'm wondering if the processing power and ram availability > (24 GB) on my assp box combined with low usage (only averaging 5000 > messages a day) might be enough to have neverQueueSize really high to > always scan everything. I'll play around there, but if neverQueueSize is > 99MB, will things like ASSP_AFCDetectSpamAttachRe be slow WHILE the > message > is transferring, or is that just after the whole message is received? > > If neverQueue is set to 12MB, am I correct in saying that we're open to a > targeted exploit, say an .exe in a .zip as long as the email is more than > 12MB? If so, that seems like a big hole, and something that I personally > would be willing to sacrifice speed/processing power to close. > > Suggestion, note in the gui under npSize that 0 really sets this to a > maximum of 12,000,000 unless neverQueueSize is set higher in > CorrectASSPcfg.pm. I've got that correct, right?) > > I forgot that DKIM signing can be done over the body too! We don't do > that, but I forgot that others might. Maybe we have npSize only ignore > DKIM if it's done over the body? DKIM should be fast if it's just the > typical headers that are used right? We have npSize set to zero though, > so this doesn't really impact me. > > Would it be an easy modification to show the negotiated cipher in the > maillog or in the email body, if nothing else, just to have more info? > X-ASSP-Cipher: TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384 > for example or in the received line like Microsoft does: > > Received: from __________ (x.x.x.x) by ______ > (y.y.y.y) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, > cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) > > Or like Gmail does > Received: from smtp.ourcharity.org (smtp.ourcharity.org. [x.x.x.x]) > by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id > l1si54144332.11.2016.09.28.07.51.21 > for <nntp.p...@gmail.com> > (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); > Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT) > > It's a little more data (and certainly your time to code this), but could > be useful if we need it in the future. > > and:: > > Again Ken, the SSL parameters are NOT the problem on your system. Your > > debug log shows a socket read time of max ~ 0.5 milliseconds (typical ~0.3 > > ms) for SSL. This read operation includes the time required for the > > decryption of the data. This is very very fast! > > It is simply the amazing count (10.400) of read and process operations > > (cycles) required by assp for such a mail, that causes the overall slow > > mail receive. > > in summary, if there's not an ASSP setting that I can tweak to have google > start sending larger SSL packets like Outlook.com and everyone else I've > seen does, what other options are there? Are you suggesting that ALL ASSP > installations are incapable of receiving large TLS emails from Google > regardless of the installation's processing power, RAM, and bandwidth? > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Eckardt > <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com> > wrote: > > > >The same email now took only 269 seconds. > > > > This is OK for googles behavior - the 1440 byte SSL frame. Around 300s > was > > expected by me for this mail - hmm.. it is 10% better - nice! > > > > Take the following math. > > > > mail size = 15000 kB > > google frame size = 1.44 kB > > > > required assp loop cycles = mail size / frame size = 10.400 > > > > mail size = 15000 kB > > outlook.com frame size = 16 kB > > > > required assp loop cycles = mail size / frame size = 940 > > > > >I really wonder if I need to tweak my cipher_list. > > > > No! > > Again Ken, the SSL parameters are NOT the problem on your system. Your > > debug log shows a socket read time of max ~ 0.5 milliseconds (typical > ~0.3 > > ms) for SSL. This read operation includes the time required for the > > decryption of the data. This is very very fast! > > It is simply the amazing count (10.400) of read and process operations > > (cycles) required by assp for such a mail, that causes the overall slow > > mail receive. > > > > >Is ClamAV scanning skipped too? > > Yes. > > > > >Could the plugins be run on the full mail after receipt, regardless of > > size? > > > > Override the config parameters. Keep in mind that 'npSize' may also > > involved in skipping or processing some mail body checks. > > > > >Isn't DKIM checking just a one time thing and not intensive? > > > > The full DKIM check is very intensive. It requires to calculate an > RSA/SHA > > hash over the complete mail. > > DCC and Razor are doing something similar. > > ASSP_AFC would make all checks (ClamAV, FileScan, content checks with > > several regular expression, decompression of attachments ....) for the > > complete mail. It parses the complete mail at once with Email::MIME. > This > > requires a huge amount of memory. Not a big deal on a 64bit OS with 8GB > > RAM and several CPU cores - who can !? > > All these can be done for any mail size, if the system is able to > process > > the amount of data fast enough. > > On most havy load systems, the 12.000.000 will be to large and may lead > in > > to stucking workers. > > > > ASSP has this set of config parameters - change them to your need - try > - > > and if does not work switch back - nothing more easy. > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > Von: K Post <nntp.p...@gmail.com> > > An: ASSP development mailing list <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > > Datum: 27.09.2016 21:08 > > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Inbound TLS from gmail.com addresses / > > servers > > > > > > > > Our primary internet connection went down again (nothing to do with > ASSP) > > which gave me the opportunity to replace 16270 with 16271. Nothing like > > making lemonade out of lemons... > > > > The same email now took only 269 seconds. That's about 15x longer than > > with TLS off, but WOW that's way better than it was before. > > I also tried with the blank cipher list, no notable difference > > And with the SSL buffers set to 0 (64 MB), again without a speed > > difference. > > > > SO- you've made a real difference here!! Is there more optimization to > > be > > made? > > > > The rub is that the exact same message sent through Outlook.com to us, > > took > > exactly 30 seconds, just a 50% overhead when compared to the 19 seconds > > for > > a non-TLS message of the same size, instead of a 1500% overhead for > > encryption when receiving from google. > > > > *Is there some magical debug switch that I could turn on to see what > > encryption Outlook.com is using and compare that to what Google's > > connection to us with?* I think prohibiting whatever the slow cipher > that > > google's using (probably a really strong one) might make the final bit > of > > difference. > > > > I'm breathing so much easier now!! Thank you. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:08 PM, K Post <nntp.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Despite all the problems we have with personalities and policies in > our > > > organization, the infrastructure is pretty solid. MTU's are set > > correctly, > > > no fragmentation, no jitter. There's low latency across the board, > and > > > really low bandwidth usage. If we sent 1000 mails a day, it's a lot. > > > > > > ...and yes, they even pay their bills, though not me very well :) > > > > > > I think it's which SSL algorithm is being used that's at least > partially > > > to blame. I have: > > > SSL_Version: SSLv23:!SSLv3:!SSLv2 > > > SSL_Cipher_list: kEECDH+ECDSA:kEECDH:kEDH:HIGH:+SHA:+RC4:RC4 > > > :!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!DSS:!PSK:!SRP:!kECDH:! > > > CAMELLIA128:!IDEA:!SEED > > > > > > I tried the default wih SSL_Cipher_List blank before, I don't think > > there > > > was a difference (but I've played with so many settings, I really > don't > > > remember) > > > > > > And last, on the SSL buffer size. If set to zero in the gui, on > windows > > > 2012, it says in green that it's set to 64 MB. I follow what you're > > saying > > > about it readying 4x 16 Kb without a loop cycle. Is that a good or > bad > > > thing though? > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Assp-test mailing list > > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test > > > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > > ******************************************************* > > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, > legally > > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of > the > > > > individual to whom it is addressed. > > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > > known virus in this email! > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Assp-test mailing list > > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test DISCLAIMER: ******************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no known virus in this email! *******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
