rfc-6008

Authentication-Results Registration for Differentiating among Cryptographic Results

M. Kucherawy
date2010-09 streamIETF wgnon working group statusPROPOSED STANDARD pages7 canonicalhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6008 doi10.17487/RFC6008
This memo updates the registry of properties in Authentication- Results: message header fields to allow a multiple-result report to distinguish among one or more cryptographic signatures on a message, thus associating specific results with the signatures they represent. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Extracted elements (12)

design-rationale §3

It is not necessary to include the entire digital signature in the Authentication-Results field to achieve disambiguation; since signatures will almost always differ substantially, only the first several bytes are anticipated to be sufficient. Requiring a minimum of eight characters balances uniqueness against header field size.

email, crypto

design-rationale §3

When a message carries multiple DKIM signatures from the same domain, existing 'header.d' or 'header.i' disambiguation properties may not be unique (e.g., a signing agent may affix multiple signatures with identical 'd=' values). This can produce simultaneous 'dkim=pass' and 'dkim=fail' results with no way to associate each result with the correct signature. The actual digital signature value ('b=' tag) is chosen as the unique identifier because SHA1/SHA256 collisions are uncommon and RSA signing rarely produces common substrings.

email, crypto, security

interoperability-note §3

Multiple DKIM signatures on a single message may share the same 'header.d' or 'header.i' values, making those properties insufficient for disambiguation in Authentication-Results. The 'header.b' property defined here is designed to be the uniqueness backstop when all other properties collide.

email, crypto

normative-requirement §4 SHOULD

If an evaluating agent observes that, despite use of the 'header.b' disambiguating tag, unequal authentication results are offered about the same signature from the same trusted authserv-id, that agent SHOULD ignore all such results.

email, security

normative-requirement §4 MUST

Matching of the 'header.b' value against the signature itself MUST be case-sensitive.

email, crypto

normative-requirement §4 MUST

The value of the 'header.b' property in an Authentication-Results field MUST be at least the first eight characters of the digital signature (the 'b=' tag from a DKIM-Signature) for which a result is being reported, and MUST be long enough to be unique among all results being reported in the same field.

email, crypto, registry

normative-requirement §4 MUST

Where the total length of the digital signature is fewer than eight characters, the entire signature MUST be included in the 'header.b' value.

email, crypto

protocol-element §4

The 'header.b' property is a new reporting item in Authentication-Results fields, used with method 'dkim'. Its value is the full or partial value of the DKIM-Signature 'b=' tag, providing a unique identifier to associate each verification result with the specific signature it describes.

email, crypto

registry §5

RFC 6008 adds the entry {Method: dkim, Defined: RFC4871, ptype: header, property: b, value: full or partial value of signature 'b' tag} to the IANA 'Email Authentication Methods' registry originally created by RFC 5451.

registry, email, crypto

security-consideration §6.2

An attacker could copy a valid signature and attach it to a modified message in transit, potentially causing two results to share the same 'header.b' value even when the full 'b=' string is used. This can generate a false negative ('fail') but cannot realistically create a false positive ('pass'); a cautious implementation may discard the false negative.

email, security, crypto

security-consideration §6.3

If a future signing scheme produces signatures shorter than eight characters, the entire signature must be used per Section 4, but such a scheme would itself be collision-prone, making the 'header.b' value unreliable as a disambiguator. The recommendation to ignore ambiguous results (Section 4 SHOULD) mitigates this risk.

email, security, crypto

security-consideration §6.1

The 'header.b' registration fixes an existing security weakness in RFC 5451: previously ambiguous multi-signature results could be obscured or misinterpreted; this property allows unambiguous association of each result with its specific signature.

email, security