> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of bill.ox...@cox.com > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:59 AM > To: dcroc...@bbiw.net > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing > > Well a broken signature is morally equivalent to unsigned so Im not sure > of the potential harm... >
And this is where I angst. In all the discussions of a broken signature being morally equivalent to unsigned, the thrust has been that it was likely broken in transit. We failed to have the discussion of it being intentionally broken in transit as an attempt to game the system. For header mutations after signing (which are likely to be a malicious attempt in the specific cases we have been discussing) I feel that treating it as simply the same as unsigned is ignoring the potential maliciousness. I recognize what Murray and Dave have said on this point but it grates. The reason we are going through the exercise of creating a stable identifier associated with a signing domain is because we perceive some value whether it be policy associated with the stable identifier or reputation associated with the stable identifier. To simply ignore this and say it is the same as if it wasn't signed is kind of like saying 0=1. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
