Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security

Executive Branch Makes Significant Progress As DMARC Deadline Nears

The DHS directive on email security has an approaching deadline that most departments in the executive branch might actually meet.

Nearly a year ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued Binding Operation Directive 18-01, which requires all domains in the executive branch of the federal government to protect websites and email with HTTPS, TLS, and DMARC. The deadline for implementation? Oct. 16, 2018. With less than a month to go before that deadline, where are the departments, bureaus, and agencies in their efforts toward compliance? The news, as of late September, is, perhaps, surprisingly good.

The latest progress report published by Agari, which has worked with the DHS to monitor progress toward the deadline, shows that 83% of executive branch domains have enabled DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance). The protocol, which is used to prevent domain spoofing, has three implementation levels: basic monitoring, "p=none"; intermediate containment, "p=quarantine"; and blocking, "p=reject." As of Sept. 14, 64% of the 1,144 executive branch domains have implemented the strongest "p=reject" level, which the directive requires, ahead of the deadline, Agari reports.

Phil Reitinger, president and CEO of the Global Cyber Alliance, which has created a set of resources for agencies still working to reach compliance, says that the directive is an important step in protecting communications from within the civilian departments of the federal executive branch. "I'm very encouraged by the progress that's been made and very supportive of DHS stepping forward to impose these sorts of requirements to increase the security of both the government and the people who live in the United States and receive government e-mail," he says.

As laudable as protecting citizens may be as a goal for the directive, there's more to the protection than reassuring those outside the government. "It's not just ordinary citizens – it's other governments, it's from agency to agency, and from government to its private-sector partners where DMARC is critical," Reitinger says. "It's a key way to stop the very worst kind of phishing and email-based attacks in their tracks."

Those attacks continue to be a significant threat to individuals and organizations. According to the "2018 Q1 Email Fraud Landscape," released by Valimail, 6.4 billion fake emails (with fake "From:" addresses) are sent worldwide every day, with the US the primary source of those fake messages.

DMARC is a form of protection already common to nongovernmental email. "If you use Google, or Microsoft, or Yahoo Web mail, then you're going to get a screen for DMARC," Reitinger says. "About 85 percent of consumer inboxes are protected by this."

One difference between the DMARC implemented by consumer email providers and that required by BOD 18-01 is that the consumer providers were likely to have been able to budget for the deployment process – a luxury not afforded the executive IT departments. And there are serious consequences for making mistakes in that deployment. "If, for example, the Social Security Administration deployed DMARC and they did it wrong, then they wouldn't be able to send an email to anybody," Reitinger explains. "For at least 85% of consumers in the United States, the mail would go straight to trash or be marked as spam. So you have to do it right."

Whatever the final expenditures turn out to be, Reitinger is confident that the investment will be worthwhile. "I would say it's a low investment for the benefit provided," he says. "One of the cool things about DMARC is, the more broadly it's deployed, the more powerful it is." At a certain critical mass of deployment, systems could automatically mark as spam any mail from a domain not deployed as DMARC.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec 3-6 2018  with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Deliver a Deadly Counterpunch to Ransomware Attacks: 4 Steps
Mathew Newfield, Chief Information Security Officer at Unisys,  12/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19604
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
Arbitrary command execution is possible in Git before 2.20.2, 2.21.x before 2.21.1, 2.22.x before 2.22.2, 2.23.x before 2.23.1, and 2.24.x before 2.24.1 because a "git submodule update" operation can run commands found in the .gitmodules file of a malicious repository.
CVE-2019-14861
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the (poorly named) dnsserver RPC pipe provides administrative facilities to modify DNS records and zones. Samba, when acting as an AD DC, stores DNS records in LDAP. In AD, the default permiss...
CVE-2019-14870
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authent...
CVE-2019-14889
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A flaw was found with the libssh API function ssh_scp_new() in versions before 0.9.3 and before 0.8.8. When the libssh SCP client connects to a server, the scp command, which includes a user-provided path, is executed on the server-side. In case the library is used in a way where users can influence...
CVE-2019-1484
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Microsoft Windows OLE fails to properly validate user input, aka 'Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'.