Threat Level: green Handler on Duty: Rob VandenBrink

SANS ISC: SPF how useful is it? - Internet Security | DShield SANS ISC InfoSec Forums


Sign Up for Free!   Forgot Password?
Log In or Sign Up for Free!
SPF how useful is it?

Chris wrote in and mentioned a talk at Auscert which highlighted that (Sender Policy Framework) SPF would have helped in the instance of an intrusion and suggested a diary outlining some of the things that can and can't be achieved using SPF.  I have my own experiences with SPF and the effectiveness, but I'd like to hear you experiences with SPF, good or bad. so I can write a more complete diary on the topic.  

For those that are not familiar with SPF.  The idea behind it is to create a DNS entry that specifies those machines in your network that are allowed to send email from your domain.  The receiving mail server checks this record and if it does not match it will drop the message.  There is a little bit more to it, but hat is the crux of it.   So if you have had any experiences with SPF (good or bad) please let me know via the contact form or directly markh.isc at gmail.com.

Thanks Chris for the idea and thanks in advance for your contributions.  I'm aiming to get a diary out on this later this month. 

Cheers

Mark H 

 

Mark

391 Posts
ISC Handler
"How useful is SPF?"

Ask that question on slashdot and you'll have thousands of nerds telling you that SPF is a useless waste of time.
Anonymous
We don't use it... .edu environment with two different cable modem ISPs and a half-dozen others with fewer customers, many faculty and staff send @XXX.edu mail from home using their ISP's mailer because the machine at home is also used for spouse/family e-mail from the ISP.

Yes, it could all be arranged so that the employee used authenticated SMTP via our servers and the family used the ISP's servers, but how many of you have ever tried to tell university faculty to do something? It's kind of like teaching a pig to sing...
Ken

40 Posts
Re: Ken's comment above, yes that's the most difficult part, but probably brings the greatest payoff if you can see it through.

Fully adopting SPF (the o=- tag) may force everyone to authenticate with your own server[s] in order to send mail addressed from your domain. That applies to human users as well as any servers that send mail (such as website signup/registration/notification emails). You may as well require SMTPS, and authentication with either a passphrase or client certificate.

The immediate benefit to your own organisation is that you can completely lock out external mail purporting to be internal. This will stop some phishing emails, and all kinds of other spam too. The default heuristic scanning of SpamAssassin would mark such emails as SPF_FAIL but potentially allow them through if they seemed otherwise genuine, in which case you can review these to see if someone or some system is not properly configured.

And then you're also in a position to scan your outgoing mail for viruses, phishing scams, or whatever else. This is not due to SPF itself, but because all mail is probably going via one or more of your own server[s] now.

Finally, not to forget, any SPF-checking recipients of your mail can then be sure whether email addressed from your domain is just spam, or whether it came through systems under your careful control.
Steven C.

171 Posts
We work with clients on anti-spam solutions and strongly encourage them to implement SPF with a hard fail to protect their brand and reputation as well as help reduce back scatter and invalid NDR delivery. We had 1 client that was getting over 3.5 Million NDR's to an invalid e-mail address every 24 hours. They implemented an SPF record and immediately saw a reduction though it took a few months before the spammer started picking on someone else entirely. :)
SSturby

3 Posts
I didn't find much that was useful with SPF.
re: NDR's - I'm amazed that any SMTP boxes that still do NDR's would be configured to correctly use SPF.
SSturby
11 Posts
We use it with some success, but it should be noted that you'll not actually see the direct results; it works by telling *others* to not accept fakemail, meaning that *they* see the effect, not you. More than anything, it should be considered an attempt at protecting your brand and rep. It can supposedly reduce backscatter, but as Brandioch said... it's limited.
Steven

42 Posts
There's no point in putting in SPF rules unless you put in a hardfail. If your organization pushes back on using the hardfail, then you aren't ready to be a single source email system.

If you're big enough, some of your users will want to have third parties send email as well. You need to find a solution for these users - although it can be as simple as splitting the sender (Return-Path) and From addresses for third party-sourced email. If you don't solve that issue, you'll never get SPF rolled in.

Bounce Address Tag Validation (BATV) will do far more to reduce your *own* backscatter.

One other key point - it should be useful (and completely harmless) to implement hardfail-only SPF rules (no legit senders!) for any non-email domains you run. Those should never have email in them, so make that point completely clear.
Steven
1 Posts
We find it works well as a heuristic to identify spam, but not as the sole criteria. Eg, we don't dump email just because it flat out fails the SPF check. It's also a good way to control email going out of your organization; keeps users from either running their own mail client or using unapproved external services.
Anonymous
we used it with a limited amount of success at the medical community I used to work at. I was "stationed" there as support for the doctors.

it worked well when everyone was on board and trying to help, but there were a number of doctors who did not/would not adopt the system since they had to change mail servers to do so.

Ken mentioned university faculty....I think they are second behind doctors about being reluctant to do things differently than they already are.
Blagarswinth

23 Posts
I should add that this was similar to ken's setup in EDU. multiple ISPs and DSL/cable modem connections to deal with throughout the santa cruz area.
Blagarswinth

23 Posts
I haven't found it useful at all. We're constantly finding our domain used to send out spam, even after our hosting provider setup everything.
Glenn

17 Posts
On 2004-02-16 Patrick Nolan quoted on isc.sans.org (it's not Patrick's opinion, but if I'm not mistaken Meng Weng Wong wrote it that way):

SPF is an attention getting and growing effort to fight "email address forgery and makes it easier to identify spams, worms, and viruses".

As I pointed out in http://lists.sans.org/pipermail/list/2004-February/014910.html this statement was wrong on nearly every aspect. The same applies to similar technologies such as SenderID and FairUCE, which we've not heard much form since.

More objections regarding SPF can be found here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/smtp-spf-is-harmful.html
That page includes pointers to comments on SPF by people such as John Levine and Steven M. Bellovin.

Nevertheless SPF may be somewhat useful in fighting backscatter or claiming "it wasn't me" as stated in some comments above.
Erik van Straten

122 Posts
About a month ago I started getting a few hundred out-of-office replies on one of my rarely used private domains (I don't receive NDNs, but do receive messages to non-existent addresses). It's photography-based and apparently attractive to a spammer. There was no SPF record in DNS.

I added the SPF record to DNS and within a week saw no more OOO replies. Either the spammer noticed the SPF record or an increase in the number of bounces and moved on to a new domain.

Lesson learned... a domain with a SPF record makes that domain less attractive to a spammer.
Erik van Straten
1 Posts
We check SPF records on inbound messages and drop those that set hard-fail. This has caused problems on occasion when someone is sending from their home system into our network, but we can usually explain how it works and why we do things this way. It's not the biggest piece in our anti-spam filter, but it still stops several thousand messages a day.

Outbound is another issue entirely. My workplace has 20+ domains, a non-integrated IT architecture, and dozens of small projects of which IT has little or no knowledge. Implementing SPF for the domain would likely be a political disaster even if we spent a year collecting information on all outside entities allowed to spoof our domains.
Jarrod

5 Posts
It's absolutely useful, but I think some think it's a silver bullet. It's most useful in helping to assign a score to how likely or unlikely an email is to be spam or somehow malicious.

For us, we have two email gateways that are basically scoring / decision engines...most of current commercial options work this way. SPF is just another check that we do for incoming email. We also use it in our DNS, and combined with other things has made our mail delivery go up dramatically...not increase double-digit percentages, but whereas we used to have 10% failures of some sort before implementing, we're getting less than 2% failures now after implementing it.

For those that want to take into account politics and whatnot, in an environment where security and implicitly best-practice are higher priorities, politics never come into play. In our organization, you have one way in and one way out for email, and we disallow any 3rd party email services from being used (that we know of)...gmail, etc. It is the only way to be relatively certain of what's coming in and going out of your network. Half the problem of "SPF is worthless" is that other things that affect it aren't taken care of before it's implemented...rogue machines and/or employees using their own methods of emailing is just one of those problems.
Jarrod
1 Posts

Sign Up for Free or Log In to start participating in the conversation!