Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo! Develops Anti-Spam Architecture

prostoalex writes "Yahoo!, the owner of one of the largest e-mail systems in the world, is said to be developing a cryptographic product that will be offered freely to mail servers. 'Domain Keys,' according to the Reuters article, would require the message sender to authenticate in order for message to come across a trusted e-mail network. The idea has been around for ages, however, it required someone from the big league like Yahoo! to step in." While Yahoo! isn't the first name that comes to mind when I think of trusted email, it's still a step in the right direction.

14 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Open standards? by satyap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as it's an open standard that eventually becomes RFC3821, I'll be okay with it. But if it's one of those proprietary "pay us to participate" schemes, they can go jump. Oh, and there should be no scope for someone to say "pay us or we won't accept email from you.

  2. Not necessarily by meldroc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If they use decent encryption, cracking this scheme will be nearly impossible. If they use a digital signature algorithm such as DSA or MD5, or public key algorithms such as RSA, the computational power required to crack these keys will be far beyond the means of the richest spammers.

    Personally, I'd like to see two things.

    1. The software Yahoo! is developing should be open-source, so nobody can monopolize it. At the very minimum, the protocols involved should be well documented so open-sourcers can make their own implementations if they have to.

    2. Give this software a few months to propogate to a good chunk of the ISPs out there. Then, Yahoo! should announce that they will NOT accept any email that is not signed with this software. I'll guarantee that everyone will be using this new protocol in a matter of weeks, since no ISP wants customers screaming because they can't get mail through to Yahoo! accounts.

    --

    Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
  3. Must be missing something by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The text of the article has to be wrong - they say the private key is delivered as a message header! Hmm, not very private...

    I'm assuming that what is sent out is an encypted token for which the public key can be used to decrpyt, so:

    • Alice wants to send an email to Bob.
    • Alice encrypts the MD5 checksum of the mail body content (or some other representative text, probably longer than 32 bytes!) using her private key, and embeds the resulting encoded string into a mail header
    • Bob receives the mail, and looks up Alice's public key to decrypt the token
    • Bob compares the decrypted token with the same representative text to see if they match.
    • Match => Read. No match => Put into 'Junk' folder


    So, the token to be encoded will change from mail to mail, thus making replay techniques pretty much impossible, I think. At least, that's the way I'd do it, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it presented before as well...

    On the other hand, I ain't a security expert, so there's probably a gaping hole in the above :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  4. Re:Oh yeah it seems like a good idea right now.... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It can be open sourced, but that doesn't mean anything about preventing lock-in.

    Presumably a 'domain key' is some cryptographic element that authenticates that your domain is who it claims to be. To me this sounds an awful lot like SSL where a third party issues the keys, or acts as a clearinghouse for self-issued keys.

    Either way, Yahoo could be the man in the middle acting as either issuer or clearinghouse. Think of it this way, OpenSSL is open sourced, but that doesn't keep the SSL issuers from having a lock on that market.

  5. You just can't win with the /. crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If someone announced a cure for all cancers, this crowd would immediately dismiss it because it could possible be bought by Microsoft. You pimply-faced pessimists remind my of Eor from Winnie the Pooh.

    1. Re:You just can't win with the /. crowd by jpetts · · Score: 4, Funny

      You pimply-faced pessimists remind my of Eor from Winnie the Pooh.

      No, Xor is the operation most often used in cryptographic functions...

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  6. Broken already? by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting
  7. Re:So now... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yes, but now you'll know for sure that the email came from Yahoo - and not some forged return-to that dumps on some ordinary Joe's server.

    step, by step, the spam problem can be solved. That doesn't mean that you should not take the first step simply because it doesn't provide a total cure.

  8. One solution by FonkiE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when you think about it, BUT this should come from IETF or some other body not from a company. A few important points:

    1) Who will issue the keys?

    2) Is anonymous mail possible if the receiver allows it?

    Furthermore spamming is a social problem emerging from our commercial world and technical solutions can never be 100%. What if:

    a) I send spam from a "secure" domain?

    b) forge certificates?

    c) the certificates are too expensive? (like SSL, I think it should be included with a domain)

    I like the "Bayes" spam filters best. You get 99.5% spam protection and keep anonymous mail.

    We all see the need for authenticated senders (biz communication, etc.), but we should be careful ...

  9. Re:Trusted email? by hey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use Yahoo mail and its very good.

    They have a pretty good spam catching service.
    It puts suspected spam in a "Bulk" folder. You can
    review this folder or just like it get purged after 30 days. Nice. You can also click on the "its not spam" / "this is spam" buttons to help them tune.

    They offer a SSL login and it was discuessed recently on Slashdot that they use the Javascriptcrypto library to calculate MD5's on the client side and send the digiest for seduvcity (maybe when you are not logging in with SSL).

    You can check your POP3/IMAP mailboxes. The resources come back color-coded.

    Good uptime. Always available.

    It's free. You can enought resources for reseaonable use. But you can buy more if you want.

    All this sounds exactly like a crypto-nerd and slashdotter would design a mail service. And this new thing is going to be opensourced!

  10. User account verification by pe1chl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First let them implement some user account verification, so that a RCPT TO: results in a 550 reply when that user does not exist.
    This enables SMTP callbacks to stop spam being spoofed "from yahoo", just like everyone else does.

  11. identity based antispam is censorship tool by esj+at+harvee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a thing to remember is that if someone can prevent a spammer from communicating based on identity (or lack thereof), you can be silenced as well.

    This is why I have put my efforts into sender-pay systems and specifically the camram project. We invite you to please come and join us in the effort to build a decentralized, user-friendly, freedom-of-speech supporting antispam system and hit spammers in the pocketbook.

    camram antique documentation (too busy writing code to write new documentation)

  12. Re:Not sure if I understand it right by RevMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do they propose to keep the encrypted private key secure? I did RTFA but couldn't find any explanation of how the encrypted version of the private key could not be spoofed since it is part of the message header.

    If the spammer...or anyone for that matter is spoofing a header anyway, it shouldn't be difficult to find out the encrypted private key, since it is sent out with every message originating from the domain.

    I could, presumably send an email from my secure email address to a non-existent email address of the domain whose encrypted private key I wish to find out: eg bounce@email.com. The bounced message should have it in the header.

    The authentication token would likely be some sort of hash of the message contents. In that way, a token is only valid for that particular message. The sender would generate a checksum of the message, encrypt it with a private key, then transmit the encrypted checksum as the token. The receiver would generate the same hash of the message contents, and decrypt the token with the public key. If the decrypted checksum equals the generated checksum, then one can be confident that the message came from the server it said it came from.

  13. Yahoo beats eariler proposals? I hope not. by kerubi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would you rather choose a Yahoo product over an open standard that is under development? I'm speaking of AMTP, of course. (See AMTP author's site).

    Yahoo's size doesn't give that much weight to their proposal. Yahoo's email is not used in business to business communication (do not count hot dog stands as businesses), so businesses can just aswell block everything that originates from *@yahoo.com if it is not directed to their consumer service department.

    Also, reverse mx records provide much of the same benefits with minimal alterations needed to current email infrastructure. One DNS record added and small change in MTA software.

    If Yahoo would really like to do a service to the internet community, they should rather consider looking AMTP and reverse mx records.

    --
    I joined two users too late.