Hi SM,

RFC 4871 is of 2007 and reports an issue with it. Section 5.3 practically says 
that 8bit SHOULD NOT be used.

Section 5.3 of RFC 4871 sounds more like a deployment consideration instead of 
a security consideration.

Yes, it is the deployment of a security add-on, though.

The question from Stephen Kent [1] in response to my comment mentions that "binary 
attachments that are ideal for delivering malware are supported irrespective of the use 
of" the 8BITMIME extension. Dave Crocker requested input from the WG on the secdir 
review [2]. His message gives a broader view of the matter (i.e. whether the change is 
within scope for the YAM WG).

I don't know what "actual substance" outside of yam's scope Dave has been talking about.

Mail is often overlooked during generic talks about Internet security, where they primarily consider the web and the DNS. My feeling is that the WG should attempt to correct such general stance, but not at the cost of "leading to madness", in John's words.

My position is that an issue was brought up during the Secdir review and I need 
an answer for the Responsible Area Director and YAM WG Chairs.

For the specific 8BITMIME case, I also agree with what Ned has said. It would sound grandiloquent to say that 8bit is dangerous because it is one of the many ways to break DKIM. I don't think it is a real concern.

I wrote some notes about hostile content ( temporary link 
http://www.elandsys.com/resources/mail/draft-moonesamy-mail-security-00.txt ). 
It is not meant to be used as input for YAM WG work.

Interesting effort.

Hostile content is not the only risk. Disclosing sensible information is another pitfall. For example, consider attaching the "wrong" file and/or sending to the "wrong" recipient. Similar leakage can also occur with abuse reporting buttons --that will hopefully break loose from web based MUAs-- as users may inadvertently "throw" messages containing sensible data, into potentially unfriendly FBLs.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam

Reply via email to