DOCSLIB.ORG

Dark Internet Mail Environment (DIME) Terminology, Architecture, Security, Data Formats, and Protocol Specifications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dark Internet Mail Environment (DIME) Terminology, Architecture, Security, Data Formats, and Protocol Specifications COVER DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this project to the National Security Agency. For better or worse, good or evil, what follows would not have been created without you. Because sometimes upholding constitutional ideas just isn’t enough; sometimes you have to uphold the actual Constitution. May god bless these United States of America. May she once again become the land of the free and home of the brave. Ladar Levison CONTENTS Cover ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Dedication ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Part 1: Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Part 2: Terminology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Part 3: System Architecture ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Core operational directives of DIME ............................................................................................................................................... 19 DIME Functional Components .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Transport......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Message object .............................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Classic email agents ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Privacy processing agents................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Organization Privacy Agent (OPA) .............................................................................................................................................. 24 User Privacy Agent (UPA) ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 Signet lookup services .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Part 4: Management Record ............................................................................................................................................................... 26 Location .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Text Records ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Security ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Refresh ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Fields ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Field Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 3 Primary ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 TLS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Syndicates ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Deliver ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Expiry .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Policy ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Subdomain ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Examples ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Part 5: Signet Data Format .................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Endianness .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Header Layout .................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Field Layout ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Defined Field Layout ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Undefined Field Layout ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Field Ordering ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Encoding ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Signet Field Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Reserved Field Types ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Common Fields .................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Name Field...................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Address Field .................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Province Field ................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stored Communications Act: Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
    Stored Communications Act: Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Richard M. Thompson II Legislative Attorney Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney May 19, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44036 Stored Communications Act: Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA Summary In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to both protect the privacy of an individual’s electronic communications and provide the government with a means for accessing these communications and related records. Although passed at the infancy of the Internet, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is part of ECPA, has been interpreted over the years to cover the content of emails, private Facebook messages, YouTube videos, and so-called metadata, or non-content information, connected to our Internet transactions (e.g., websites visited, to/from and time/date stamps on emails). The scope of the SCA is determined largely by the entities to which it applies, “electronic communication service” (ECS) providers and “remote computing service” (RCS) providers, as defined in the statute. It does not apply to government access to records held by a party to the communication. The SCA has two core components. First, it creates a broad bar against service providers voluntarily disclosing a customer’s communications to the government or others, subject to various exceptions, and second, it establishes procedures under which the government can require a provider to disclose customers’ communications or records. As to government access, ECPA utilizes a tiered system with different levels of evidence required depending on whether the provider is an ECS or RCS; whether the data sought is content or non-content; whether the email has been opened; and whether advance notice has been given to the customer.
    [Show full text]
  • A Security Analysis of Email Communications
    A security analysis of email communications Ignacio Sanchez Apostolos Malatras Iwen Coisel Reviewed by: Jean Pierre Nordvik 2 0 1 5 EUR 28509 EN European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen Contact information Ignacio Sanchez Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, I - 21027 Ispra (VA), Italia E-mail: [email protected] JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc Legal Notice This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. All images © European Union 2015, except: Frontpage : © bluebay2014, fotolia.com JRC 99372 EUR 28509 EN ISSN 1831-9424 ISBN 978-92-79-66503-5 doi:10.2760/319735 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Italy Abstract The objective of this report is to analyse the security and privacy risks of email communications and identify technical countermeasures capable of mitigating them effectively. In order to do so, the report analyses from a technical point of view the core set of communication protocols and standards that support email communications in order to identify and understand the existing security and privacy vulnerabilities. On the basis of this analysis, the report identifies and analyses technical countermeasures, in the form of newer standards, protocols and tools, aimed at ensuring a better protection of the security and privacy of email communications.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Security of Practical Mail User Agents Against Cache Side-Channel Attacks †
    applied sciences Article On the Security of Practical Mail User Agents against Cache Side-Channel Attacks † Hodong Kim 1 , Hyundo Yoon 1, Youngjoo Shin 2 and Junbeom Hur 1,* 1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea; [email protected] (H.K.); [email protected] (H.Y.) 2 School of Computer and Information Engineering, Kwangwoon University, Seoul 01897, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † This paper is an extended version of our paper published in the 2020 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN), Barcelona, Spain, 7–10 January 2020. Received: 30 April 2020; Accepted: 26 May 2020; Published: 29 May 2020 Abstract: Mail user agent (MUA) programs provide an integrated interface for email services. Many MUAs support email encryption functionality to ensure the confidentiality of emails. In practice, they encrypt the content of an email using email encryption standards such as OpenPGP or S/MIME, mostly implemented using GnuPG. Despite their widespread deployment, there has been insufficient research on their software structure and the security dependencies among the software components of MUA programs. In order to understand the security implications of the structures and analyze any possible vulnerabilities of MUA programs, we investigated a number of MUAs that support email encryption. As a result, we found severe vulnerabilities in a number of MUAs that allow cache side-channel attacks in virtualized desktop environments. Our analysis reveals that the root cause originates from the lack of verification and control over the third-party cryptographic libraries that they adopt. In order to demonstrate this, we implemented a cache side-channel attack on RSA in GnuPG and then conducted an evaluation of the vulnerability of 13 MUAs that support email encryption in Ubuntu 14.04, 16.04 and 18.04.
    [Show full text]
  • Efail: Breaking S/MIME and Openpgp Email Encryption Using Exfiltration Channels
    Efail: Breaking S/MIME and OpenPGP Email Encryption using Exfiltration Channels Damian Poddebniak and Christian Dresen, Münster University of Applied Sciences; Jens Müller, Ruhr University Bochum; Fabian Ising and Sebastian Schinzel, Münster University of Applied Sciences; Simon Friedberger, NXP Semiconductors, Belgium; Juraj Somorovsky and Jörg Schwenk, Ruhr University Bochum https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/poddebniak This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium. August 15–17, 2018 • Baltimore, MD, USA ISBN 978-1-939133-04-5 Open access to the Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX. Efail: Breaking S/MIME and OpenPGP Email Encryption using Exfiltration Channels Damian Poddebniak1, Christian Dresen1, Jens Muller¨ 2, Fabian Ising1, Sebastian Schinzel1, Simon Friedberger3, Juraj Somorovsky2, and Jorg¨ Schwenk2 1Munster¨ University of Applied Sciences 2Ruhr University Bochum 3NXP Semiconductors, Belgium Abstract is designed to protect user data in such scenarios. With end-to-end encryption, the email infrastructure becomes OpenPGP and S/MIME are the two prime standards merely a transportation service for opaque email data and for providing end-to-end security for emails. We de- no compromise – aside from the endpoints of sender or scribe novel attacks built upon a technique we call mal- receiver – should affect the security of an end-to-end en- leability gadgets to reveal the plaintext of encrypted crypted email. emails. We use CBC/CFB gadgets to inject malicious plaintext snippets into encrypted emails. These snippets S/MIME and OpenPGP. The two most prominent stan- abuse existing and standard conforming backchannels to dards offering end-to-end encryption for email, S/MIME exfiltrate the full plaintext after decryption.
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptic Journalism: News Reporting of Encryption
    Cryptic journalism: news reporting of encryption Einar Thorsen School of Journalism, English and Communication Bournemouth University United Kingdom [email protected] ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7126-7293 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Digital Journalism on 19/10/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/21670811.2016.1243452 Abstract In light of Edward Snowden’s global surveillance disclosures, this article examines news discourses about online communication security and surveillance circumvention practices. It analyses 1,249 news reports mentioning encryption in The Guardian and The New York Times, covering a 3-year period from June 2012 to June 2015 (one year before and two years after the Snowden revelations). Whilst there was a marked increase in volume of news articles mentioning encryption post-Snowden, the context in which encryption is discussed has since shifted from an initial emphasis on "surveillance" towards "security" issues. However, the research found that greater news coverage of encryption did not necessarily mean an increase in depth of coverage, with most mentions of encryption vague and non-descript. In terms of source usage, the research finds an emphasis on private corporations in both publications analysed. This is problematic when many of the organisations allowed to speak on encryption were those accused of colluding with the US and UK Governments to aid covert mass surveillance - the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and so forth - thus providing them with a platform to exonerate themselves from the accusations. This contradictory depiction of communication security serves the status quo and prevents advancement of the “encrypted by default” communication practice called for by Snowden.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act
    ARTICLE THE NEXT GENERATION COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT ORIN S. KERR† In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to regulate government access to Internet communications and records. ECPA is widely regarded as outdated, and ECPA reform is now on the Congressional agenda. At the same time, existing reform proposals retain the structure of the 1986 Act and merely tinker with a few small aspects of the statute. This Article offers a thought experiment about what might happen if Congress were to repeal ECPA and enact a new privacy statute to replace it. The new statute would look quite different from ECPA because overlooked changes in Internet technology have dramatically altered the assumptions on which the 1986 Act was based. ECPA was designed for a network world with high storage costs and only local network access. Its design reflects the privacy threats of such a network, including high privacy protection for real-time wiretapping, little protection for noncontent records, and no attention to particularity or jurisdiction. Today’s Internet reverses all of these assumptions. Storage costs have plummeted, leading to a reality of almost total storage. Even U.S.-based services now serve a predominantly † Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School. This Article was supported by the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation Program on Demography, Technology and Criminal Justice at the Law Library of Congress, where the Author presently serves as a Scholar in Residence. The Author thanks Richard Salgado, Chris Soghoian, Al Gidari, Jim Dempsey, Marc Zwillinger, Chris Yoo, Eric Goldman, Edward Felten, Ryan Calo, Andrea Matwyshyn, Jerry Kang, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Gail Kent for their helpful comments, as well as Cynthia Jordan, Robert Newlen, and David Mao at the Law Library of Congress for their support.
    [Show full text]
  • Email Encryption Isn't Enough
    Email Encryption Isn’t Enough Five Best Practices to Safeguard Against 3rd Party Cyber Risk Executive Summary CISOs and other IT executives cringe when they think about an email’s journey across the internet, undergoing eavesdropping by criminals, companies and governments along the way. Or that it may sit in the 3rd party recipient’s email server for months, completely outside your control. Peers tell you about their non-compliance fines from breaches of personal information, while you worry about theft of intellectual property giving a competitor the edge. Many firms try to address these problems by encrypting their most sensitive communications but discover a myriad of shortcomings. You can’t give users a tool that prompts questions like, “What is my recipient’s public key and why do I need it?” You need secure email that still works like normal email, especially for 3rd party recipients who may be customers, clients, and partners in other organizations. The kicker: you can’t guarantee email privacy if your cloud provider has the encryption keys, or if you don’t properly govern and monitor your insiders. Embrace the following five best practices to go beyond encryption and fully safeguard your organization’s email privacy. SHARE TWEET SHARE 2 | www.accellion.com SECURE EMAIL BEST PRACTICE Ensure Employees Adopt Secure Email 1 Incorporate Simple Security and Governance into Users’ Workflows Security professionals abhor the risks of standard email traveling over the internet in the clear. You want standard, compliant encryption—AES-256 at rest and SSL/TLS in transit—to thwart scans by advertisers, malware and foreign powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Report of Email Spying Recovery Is Virtually Impossible
    Ruiz R and Winter R, J Forensic Leg Investig Sci 2020, 6: 046 DOI: 10.24966/FLIS-733X/100046 HSOA Journal of Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences Case Report confidentiality are characteristics, which, when lost, result in finan- cial losses and demand a considerable effort to regain them, although Case Report of Email Spying recovery is virtually impossible. This issue is well characterized by Scheneier [6]. Society has opened up its privacy in exchange for the Ruiz R1* and Winter R2 promise of more security. Who decides which particular individual should be the focus of monitoring focus, and in what form? In January 1CTI Renato Archer, Campinas, Department of Crime, Brazil 2015, the magazine Science published a special issue titled “The End 2Brazilian Army/UNICAMP, Department of Crime, Brazil of Privacy” [7]. Large companies are often blamed for providing data on people and institutions indiscriminately to governments without appropriate legal actions. As there are no effective means of control, businesses and individuals essentially depend on the trust that people Abstract have in these large companies that hold records on us. On 11th July 2013, the British newspaper The Guardian [8] published the contents This case report is about Brazilian researchers that did have their of top-secret documents, showing that Microsoft works in conjunc- e-mail invaded by Uk Ministry of Defence with cooperation from Mi- tion with the NSA and the FBI, helping these agencies to circumvent crosoft Corp. The work show details of the invasion and steps that new encryption procedures in its products, including Outlook. Mic- permitted this discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Easy Email Encryption with Easy Key Management
    Why Joanie Can Encrypt: Easy Email Encryption with Easy Key Management John S. Koh Steven M. Bellovin Jason Nieh Columbia University Columbia University Columbia University New York, NY New York, NY New York, NY koh@cs:columbia:edu smb@cs:columbia:edu nieh@cs:columbia:edu Abstract subjected to a simple password recovery and reset attack Email privacy is of crucial importance. Existing email encryp- which granted the attacker full access to her personal email tion approaches are comprehensive but seldom used due to account on the Yahoo! Mail website. John Brennan’s AOL their complexity and inconvenience. We take a new approach web email account was compromised via social engineering. to simplify email encryption and improve its usability by im- Adversaries also sometimes seize entire email servers such plementing receiver-controlled encryption: newly received as in the cases of cock.li and TorMail [30, 41], or compromise messages are transparently downloaded and encrypted to a them, such as in the Sony Pictures email leaks [43]. locally-generated key; the original message is then replaced. The common thread is that a compromise exposes the To avoid the problem of moving a single private key between entire history of affected users’ emails after a single breach. devices, we implement per-device key pairs: only public keys With the explosive growth in cloud storage, it is easy to need be synchronized via a simple verification step. Com- keep gigabytes of old emails at no cost. Gmail’s massive promising an email account or server only provides access storage capacity—up to 15 GB for free, or 30 TB for paid to encrypted emails.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Preserving Web-Based Email
    Privacy Preserving Web-Based Email Kevin Butler, William Enck, Jennifer Plasterr, Patrick Traynor, and Patrick McDaniel Systems and Internet Infrastructure Security Laboratory The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 USA {butler,enck,plasterr,traynor,mcdaniel}@cse.psu.edu Abstract. Recent web-based applications offer users free service in ex- change for access to personal communication, such as on-line email ser- vices and instant messaging. The inspection and retention of user com- munication is generally intended to enable targeted marketing. However, unless specifically stated otherwise by the collecting service’s privacy pol- icy, such records have an indefinite lifetime and may be later used or sold without restriction. In this paper, we show that it is possible to protect a user’s privacy from these risks by exploiting mutually oblivious, com- peting communication channels. We create virtual channels over online services (e.g., Google’s Gmail, Microsoft’s Hotmail) through which mes- sages and cryptographic keys are delivered. The message recipient uses a shared secret to identify the shares and ultimately recover the original plaintext. In so doing, we create a wired “spread-spectrum” mechanism for protecting the privacy of web-based communication. We discuss the design and implementation of our open-source Java applet, Aquinas, and consider ways that the myriad of communication channels present on the Internet can be exploited to preserve privacy. 1 Introduction Internet users hemorrhage personal information. Almost every interaction on the web is scanned (directly or indirectly) by some party other than those directly involved in the transaction. Tracking cookies, web bugs, and other tools are used by advertisers to follow users as they move from site to site across the Internet [21].
    [Show full text]
  • NIST SP 800-177 Trustworthy Email ______
    Archived NIST Technical Series Publication The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). Archived Publication Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-177 Title: Trustworthy Email Publication Date(s): September 2016 Withdrawal Date: February 26, 2019 Withdrawal Note: This publication has been superseded in its entirety by SP 800-177 Revision 1. Superseding Publication(s) The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-177 Revision 1 Title: Trustworthy Email Author(s): Scott Rose; J. Stephen Nightingale; Simson L. Garfinkel; Ramaswamy Chandramouli Publication Date(s): February 2019 URL/DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-177r1 Additional Information (if applicable) Contact: Advanced Network Technology Division (Information Technology Laboratory) Latest revision of the attached publication: Related information: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/high-assurance-domains https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-177/archive/2016-09-07 Withdrawal N/A announcement (link): Date updated: February 26, 2019 NIST Special Publication 800-177 Trustworthy Email Ramaswamy Chandramouli Simson Garfinkel Stephen Nightingale Scott Rose This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-177 C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y NIST Special Publication 800-177 Trustworthy Email Scott Rose, Stephen Nightingale Information Technology Laboratory Advanced Network Technology Division Simson L. Garfinkel Information Technology Laboratory Information Access Division Ramaswamy Chandramouli Information Technology Laboratory Computer Security Division This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-177 September 2016 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mosaic Theory and the Stored Communications Act
    NOTE PRIVACY IN THE CLOUD: THE MOSAIC THEORY AND THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT Gabriel R. Schlabach* In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amend- ment prohibits the government from installing GPS devices on suspects’ cars without a warrant. Although the majority limited its holding to the physical in- stallation of such devices, five concurring Justices (including Justice Sotomayor, who joined the majority opinion) indicated their desire for broader privacy pro- tections by endorsing the adoption of the “mosaic theory.” Under this theory, certain types of long-term (or otherwise expansive) surveillance violate a sus- pect’s reasonable expectation of privacy, even when each individual act of sur- veillance would otherwise pass Fourth Amendment muster, because the govern- ment can analyze the information in the aggregate to infer private details about the suspect that no individual member of the public could reasonably discover by observing her for a short time. While Jones was limited to GPS tracking, mosaic theory concerns logically extend to a much wider range of new technologies. In recent years, telephone and Internet service providers have amassed extensive (and growing) amounts of data about their customers—more than enough to construct revealing mosaics of these individuals’ lives. But under the Stored Communications Act, a component of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the government may order such companies to turn over customers’ records using only a court order or an admin- istrative subpoena—less than the warrant and probable cause requirements of a typical Fourth Amendment search. Responding to such increasing threats to privacy, this Note proposes an amendment to the Stored Communications Act that would incorporate the mosaic theory into the statute.
    [Show full text]