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.

Network Security

7/29/2019
05:40 PM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
50%
50%

Not Using DMARC Security Protocol Leaves Businesses Vulnerable to Spoofing

A global survey found that most business and government domains don't use DMARC, which opens them up to email spoofing.

250ok took a survey look at the global adaption of DMARC, which is a security protocol that has been designed to prevent email spoofing. Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance works on top of email servers that already support the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM). These protocols must be present and enabled for DMARC to function.

It allows admins to check on the "From:" address in email to verify it. The survey looked at the rate of adoption by various companies and segments globally.

They found 79.7% of 21,075 business and government domains don't use DMARC. Sectors analyzed included Fortune 500, US government (executive, legislative and judicial), the China Hot 100, the top 100 law firms, international nonprofits, the SaaS 1000, education, e-commerce, financial services and travel.

Since most are not using the protocol, they remain vulnerable to the spoofing of an email. While the survey shows that DMARC adoption rate is better than in previous years, it may be too little to be an effective barrier.

The survey found that Fortune 500 companies using DMARC policies had upped to 23%, which is still a relatively low number.

The executive branch of the US government stood in start contrast to this. In October 2017, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) binding operational order 18-01 required the Executive branch of the government move to a "reject" (reject mail that is unauthenticated) policy. It seems to have been successful in motivating their adoption of DMARC.

81.5% of domains were surveyed to have a p=reject policy, 0.7% at a p=quarantine and 4.4% at a p=none, leaving 13.4% of domains without any type of DMARC record.

The survey report notes that "The smallest of the government branches, Judicial, is way behind in adoption with only 17.3% of domains with any type of policy. Finally, the Legislative branch pulls up the rear with 13.0% of domains applying a DMARC policy."

DMARC adoption overall trended upward in this survey, with nearly 25% of all domains reviewed showing some level of DMARC adoption. The most likely conclusion is that the standard is slowly maturing. They also found that the not-for-profit sector worldwide is failing to embrace DMARC. NPOs are smaller organizations with budgetary constraints, and 250ok thinks that "implementation of wide-scale DMARC support when balanced against their other efforts is a secondary priority." The complexity of managing DMARC, the urgency to adopt a new standard and being budget friendly all play a role in low adoption rates for these groups.

The China "Hot 100" continues to be the least likely to adopt DMARC. This is the second year in a row that they surveyed this same group of companies and the survey found zero domains using a p=reject, though 250ok did note a slight increase in support for p=none and p=quarantine.

DMARC can help the fight against email spoofing. Each organization has to determine where this problem will fit into their own threat analysis, and work with the result.

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.