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.

Endpoint

10/24/2016
11:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Deleting Email’s Original Sin: An Historical Perspective

Can DMARC do for email security what SSL certificates did for e-commerce?

For consumers and businesses alike, opening email has long been an exercise in trust. Do you know that the person or company whose name appears in the ‘From’ field really sent that message? Are you sure? As the CEO of an email authentication company, those are the questions that keep me (and my clients) up at night. 

But it wasn’t always that way. For most of the past 40 years, we just took it on faith that the sender’s name and email address of the sender in our inbox are legitimate. That’s because when the wizards who first created the Internet initially set up email’s basic protocols, they balanced costs in computing power, implementation, and ease of use versus the risk of fraud. At the time, it was nearly inconceivable that 80 percent of all email would be malware, phish or spam. So they didn’t include any provisions for authenticating the sender of an email.

That’s led to a rash of phishing attacks aimed at getting employees or customers to click on malicious links, send W-2s and employee data to scammers, or wire funds into criminals’ accounts. Just ask John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, whose emails were allegedly compromised by Russian hackers, or the unsuspecting employees at Snapchat who gave away highly sensitive payroll data to scammers, or Medstar Health in Washington DC, where someone, in all likelihood, received an email asking them to click on what seemed to be an innocuous link or PDF attachment, but was actually a virus that brought the entire system to its knees.

These  costly and dangerous attacks all reveal the deep vulnerabilities facing our national email and internet infrastructure today. The problem is pervasive — the FBI reports that just one scam, the BEC (Business to Email Compromise) is up 1,300% since last year, costing U.S. companies more than $3 billion dollars in losses.

DMARC: The Email Authentication Gold Standard
The good news is the situation is beginning to change for the better, thanks to a movement toward email authentication led by the major email service providers, including Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft. These entities have recently converged around a set of open email authentication standards called DMARC  (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance). It’s the keystone global standard, integrating two older authentication standards and aligning them in a way that makes it possible to authenticate the identity of an email sender easily, reliably and quickly — essentially creating a white list of acceptable senders of email, and blocking unauthorized senders from delivery. 

In a world where the rise of third-party cloud services are increasingly common for enterprises, this is especially essential. Companies have far less visibility and control over the email sent on their behalf than in years past, creating concerns about compliance, best practices, and "shadow IT." Luckily, word is catching on about DMARC, and increasingly, there are good free tools that can quickly tell you if your domains and external services are authenticating properly.

Lessons from the Past: Verisign and SSL
But if this rising concern of cyber safety all sounds a bit familiar, it should. In the late 1990s, ecommerce companies faced a similar “original sin” with the Internet’s basic lack of encryption. Users were increasingly reluctant to use their credit cards online since they were being stolen in massive numbers. A coalition of banks, credit card companies and retailers, worried the nascent e-commerce surge would be hurt, decided to act. Credit card transactions over unencrypted, plain-text Web connections had to stop. But getting encrypted SSL connections to work meant getting a digital certificate and learning how to configure it properly, which was a daunting prospect for many retail companies in the 1990s.

VeriSign stepped into this gap with an easy-to-use digital certificate authority and an array of related services. This allowed banks and Visa to enforce the use of Secure Socket Layer certificates (SSL certs). What happened next is now well-known: Thanks to SSL, the e-commerce revolution was able to blossom, boosting the economy and leading to myriad new industries.

With DMARC wiping clean email’s original sin, we are about to see a similar transformation of email-based communications and commerce. Phishing attacks that spoof domain names will be stopped cold, because no unauthorized parties will be able to send fraudulent emails that look like they come from someone else. Government agencies and companies will gain better control of their messaging systems, and will be able to designate which partners and vendors are allowed to send email on their behalf. And their IT teams will get detailed reports on who is actually sending email, and who is attempting to send spoofed messages, masquerading as their company.

Now it’s up to government and industry to act quickly to adopt these standards. The sooner we are able to regain trust in email, the sooner all of us — citizens, consumers, and employees alike — will again enjoy the benefits of this amazing invention. And the sooner we can all get some sleep when it comes to email concerns. 

Related Content:

Alexander García-Tobar is CEO and co-founder of ValiMail, a leading provider of email authentication services located in San Francisco, CA. Alexander has deep roots in the email authentication and cybersecurity space, as a global executive and advisor at Agari, ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/26/2016 | 9:14:33 AM
Private-communication authentication
The thing about certificates though is that they're about (1) one party authenticating they are who they say they are, and (2) the same party authenticating that the connection is secure.

Email doesn't work that way...and from time to time you're going to get unfamiliar senders (and, therefore, non-whitelisted senders) who are sending legitimate email.

Of course, all of these emails could be "authenticated," but then what if someone who has authentication via a certificate authority then decides to become a bad actor?

The easy rebuttal to this is that, "Well, that's okay, because we'll have their identity -- and can thereby revoke their authentication."

But then that gets us down the data-privacy rabbit hole.

It's one thing for online retailers and other sellers / companies to authenticate themselves publicly.  It's another thing to ask people to authenticate themselves for private communication.

Or what am I missing here?
AmbarishM389
50%
50%
AmbarishM389,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/24/2016 | 8:19:36 PM
Email authentication
Thank you for the post. As a user, would be great to know that emails that I receive are coming from authentic sources. Hope DMARC or something equivalent can be sufficiently prevelant that non-DMARC mails can directly go to my spam folder!

 
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...