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.

Application Security

3/23/2021
05:55 PM
50%
50%

Anti-Spoofing for Email Gains Adoption, but Enforcement Lags

More organizations adopt sender authentication, but strict quarantining or rejection of unauthenticated messages remains uncommon.

The number of domains using an anti-spoofing technology known as Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance, or DMARC, topped 2.7 million in 2020, yet most domains still fail to specify a policy to delete or quarantine unauthenticated email, according to data from security firms published over the last month.

During the pandemic, email scams and phishing attacks that purported to be from the World Health Organization (WHO) widely targeted businesses and government agencies. DMARC foils one component of such attacks, when the attacker spoofs an organization in an e-mail's From field. As of December 2020, more than 2.7 million domains published a DMARC record, up 43% during the last year, according to the latest adoption report on DMARC.org, based on data from Farsight Security, a cybersecurity intelligence firm.

Related Content:

Email Security Features Fail to Prevent Phishable 'From' Addresses

Special Report: Building an Effective Cybersecurity Incident Response Team

New From The Edge: Cartoon Caption Winner: In Hot Water

Still, two-thirds of those domains do not specify any policy for unauthenticated email, instead essentially monitoring the situation, according to the Farsight data. With ransomware and non-spoofed phishing attacks increasingly common, companies are tackling those issues that have the most impact on their risks, says Ben April, chief technology officer for Farsight Security.

"We will continue to see it slowly creep up for a while," he says. "It's a trickle of adoption mainly based on companies asking, 'What is going to kill me next?' That sort of risk analysis determines what important threats the company needs to focus on next."

DMARC allows an organization to specify how recipients should handle unauthenticated messages using information inserted into its domain-name record. Using two other standards — Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Domain Key Identified Mail (DKIM) — for verifying the authenticity of a message and checking whether the source is authorized to send email messages, the recipient has all the necessary information to check the source of email and apply the DMARC policy.

With email playing a role in more than half of malware attacks and phishing the most common vector in breaches, according to the "Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)," securing business messaging is a top priority.

Overall, the numbers suggest that the email authentication technologies continue to grow as a standard, but while necessary, they are not sufficient, says Olesia Klevchuk, a senior spokesperson for cybersecurity firm Barracuda Networks.

"Initially, it was primarily brand-conscious organizations adopting, but we are now seeing broader adoption as good security hygiene," she says. "As a security control, it's a good step, but nowhere near sufficient to protect against sophisticated phishing."

Domains that use DMARC are less likely to be sources of suspicious email messages, with 1.9% of messages from non-DMARC domains considered suspicious, compared with only 0.4% of messages from domains enforcing DMARC, according to a report by email security provider Valimail. In its own data, the company found that nearly 1.3 million organizations have added email authentication information to their domain as a way to fight spoofing, but less than 15% strictly enforce the policy.

Other research, such as this 2018 USENIX paper, found that about 60% of domains with a mail server had an SPF record and only 6% specified a DMARC policy. 

Yet volume matters as well. The absolute number of domains hides the fact that adoption by the most major sources of email — such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and others — is a more important factor.

As far back as 2013, Google boasted that the adoption of SPF and DKIM had reached high levels. More than 95% of email messages came from an email server with an SPF record, and almost 87% have a server with a DKIM record, the company stated in an updated 2016 blog post, which represents the latest data released by the company.

While the adoption of the technologies has made it harder for attackers, they are finding ways around it, says Barracuda's Klevchuk.

"Although hackers still use domain spoofing as a tactic — especially when DMARC is not configured properly — they are increasingly turning to domain impersonation, [where] attackers attempt to impersonate the domain of a legitimate business by using techniques such as typosquatting," she says. "As more organizations start to adopt DMARC, hackers will start to turn more to tactics such domain impersonation to get through existing email security."

Story updated on March 25.

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
JimDonahue
50%
50%
JimDonahue,
User Rank: Author
3/25/2021 | 9:41:03 AM
Re: Incorrect statement in article
Thank you--post has been updated. 

 

Jim Donahue

Staff Editor
Dotzero
50%
50%
Dotzero,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/25/2021 | 9:01:08 AM
Incorrect statement in article
"DMARC foils one component of such attacks, when the attacker spoofs an organization in the sender line."

 

This is incorrect. DMARC does not use the Sender field. It uses the RFC5321.From field.
Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-20733
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Improper authorization in handler for custom URL scheme vulnerability in ????????? (asken diet) for Android versions from v.3.0.0 to v.4.2.x allows a remote attacker to lead a user to access an arbitrary website via the vulnerable App.
CVE-2021-20734
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in Welcart e-Commerce versions prior to 2.2.4 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-20735
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in ETUNA EC-CUBE plugins (Delivery slip number plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.10 and earlier, Delivery slip number csv bulk registration plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.8 and earlier, and Delivery slip number mail plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.8 and earlier) allows remote attackers to ...
CVE-2021-20736
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
NoSQL injection vulnerability in GROWI versions prior to v4.2.20 allows a remote attacker to obtain and/or alter the information stored in the database via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-20737
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Improper authentication vulnerability in GROWI versions prior to v4.2.20 allows a remote attacker to view the unauthorized pages without access privileges via unspecified vectors.