Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0308270922580.23561-100000@tundra.winternet.com>
From: dufresne at winternet.com (Ron DuFresne)
Subject: [LONG] Improving E-mail security...


Might as well tackle ftp then also.  Isn't postfix supposed to have been
such an attempt as to provide something smaller, and more stable then
sendmail?  Although not a rewrite of SMTP perse...

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, lceone@...cast.net wrote:

> Bengt Ruusunen wrote:
> > - E-mail receiving server could check that 'very first original' From:
> > line and if it is same than the receiver address ie. 'someone@...eone.com'
> >
> > Perform an check to see if the 'sender identification' ie. salted public
> > key, GUID or something (X-Authenticated-Guid: #0a845d299ca340087140)
> > exists in mail header.
>
> Sort of like a required, server based, pgp check?
>
> <OPINION>
> I think it's just about time that we stop patching over this dinosaur
> protocol that we call SMTP (RFC 821 from *August 1982*).  This protocol
> was originally designed to send text messages from one machine to
> another back in the "Good Ol' Days" when the internet was safe because
> it existed at two schools and a government institution.
>
> Then as the years went on, the protocol became inadequate.  e.g. it only
> allowed for a message to use the 128 ASCII character codes.  So instead
> of re-evaluating and rewriting the protocol, we've patched it.  We added
> MIME, because that made it easier to send each other HTML formatted
> email and pictures of our cats.  We added PGP, but not frequently or in
> a consistent manner.  We added pretty features, but we've neglected any
> security that should have been added, or problems fixed (feature bloat
> anyone?).
>
> But you cant do that.  You cant build a big house on a small foundation
> or it will crumble.  Today's *constant* problems/viruses/spam/etc is the
> crumble showing itself.  It will only get worse from here.  Seriously,
> we shouldn't have to think twice about simply viewing an email for fear
> of self-executing viruses.  That should not be an option.
>
> <SEMI-FACTUAL BABBLING>
> About spam.  This problem, I think, mainly arises from the fact that the
> spamming server can connect to domain.com, transmit one copy of the spam
> email, and send it to 100,000 users, from anyone, to anyone, no
> questions asked.  This puts a huge load on the receiving server, and
> comparably minimal load on the sending server (depending on message
> size).  If the protocol was rewritten to allow only "one for one"
> sending, maybe this would slow them down?  I dunno, just a thought.
> Oh! And *maybe* we could make relaying OFF by default!  Wacky ideas.
> </SEMI-FACTUAL BABBLING>
>
> So maybe it would be in the best interest of the internet community if
> someone stopped and took a look at what the requirements for a good
> communications protocol to replace email would be, and tried to put one
> together from the ground up.  Security, features, and all.  Heck, if I
> can get a group together, I'll take a crack at the darn thing myself.
> But I don't claim to be any sort of expert on anything (except maybe the
> semi-factual babbling), so I'd need a good group.
> </OPINION>
>
> Just my $0.10
>
> -Larry Engleman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
	***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists