<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Two more thoughts:<br>
<br>
1. obfuscated DNS entrys should be possible too, of course.<br>
2. i think it would be the best to ask applicants in the
apply-form, if they can provide a reverse dns record for the probe
they apply for.<br>
<br>
BR,<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03.09.22 14:48, Simon Brandt via ripe-atlas wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:42e09f54-eeae-4f71-0473-7579d15e0a51@toppas.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hello,<br>
<br>
i'd like to start a discussion about having a RIPE Atlas SMTP
measurements.<br>
First of all: yes, i know there's a big obstacle for such a
measurement type. A lot of probes are deployed using enduser
internet-connections like dsl, cable, etc. with dynamic/eyeball IP
addresses. Those IP spaces are usually blocked by SMTP servers as
approach to reduce spam mails. For Example: by using blocklists
like Spamhaus PBL. So a proper SMTP measurement wouldn't work.<br>
<br>
BUT we could have an easy way for RIPE Atlas probe hosters to
signalize, that their probe is eligible for SMTP measurements:<br>
<br>
Step 1: enable "Simple DNS Entry"<br>
Step 2: create a matching reverse DNS record for the probes IP
address<br>
<br>
Everybody who is able so configure a reverse DNS record for his
probes IP address, is most likely using a non-dynamic/non-home ip
address space e.g. a datacenter or office network. If an ISP
provides the option for his customers to configure a reverse DNS
record, it's most likely a "business-customer" subnet which can be
used to run mailservers. After Step 1+2 are done, the RIPE Atlas
platform would easily be able to verify if forward-confirmed
reverse DNS is successful, and if so, automatically enable that
probe for SMTP measurements. Alternatively: probe hosters choose
their own Forward-confirmed reverse DNS name and submit it on the
RIPE Atlas website.<br>
<br>
Also: if we would have STMP measurements, forward-confirmed
reverse DNS should be mandatory for anchors, or is it already?<br>
<br>
Why should we have SMTP measurements?<br>
<br>
Besides general reachability checks, we could also evaluate SMTP
response codes. But the most important thing for me is this: the
SMTP protocol is old. Very old. From a security point of view,
it's absolutely outdated. Most security features have been added
years after the initial RfC. Thus, those security features are
optional. Mandatory SMTP encryption is not provided by the SMTP
RfC. So both sides have to signalize, that they are capable of
encryption using the STARTTLS command. An attacker
(man-in-the-middle) can perform a downgrade attack by suppressing
the STARTTLS command. So both sides are forced to fallback and
communicate unencrypted. RIPE Atlas would be a really good tool to
identify such attacks, by monitor/measure the (enhanced) status
codes of a target.<br>
<br>
But there's more!<br>
I see a two-sided model here. Either use the RIPE Atlas SMTP
measurements to monitor/measure your own mailserver by alot of
other RIPE probes out there, OR probe hosters could run SMTP
measurements originating from their own probe to find out, if
their own IP address is currently blocked by other mailservers.<br>
<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
<br>
BR,<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>