4 ms·
DKIM etc cannot authenticate the email address. It can authenticate the sender domain (which is the main win anyway). Only signed emails can be authenticated a
by BrandoElFollito 3y ago
DKIM etc cannot authenticate the email address. It can authenticate the sender domain (which is the main win anyway).
Only signed emails can be authenticated against the sender.
- rcxdude 3y agotrue, but even the domain is a really obvious signal for most of these attacks, considering most companies use their own domain for emails and it's fairly difficult to fake an email coming from that domain. So something coming from <ceo><random string of digits>@gmail.com should raise alarm bells for both automated systems and users (assuming the users can actually see it, which they now can on outlook)
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoYes of course - this is why I mentioned that authenticating the domain is the main win. Now - setting up SPF, DMARC, ... is technically easy but not so much organizationally. This is a real pain in the ass to find what various organizations used in the past in their outsourced communication (marketing, pay system, travel, ...). The advantage that Outlook had (and has) is that it will resolve the user information from Active Directory. Receiving an email in Microsoft from "Bill Gates <helloworld@kjshkjsdhfkj.com>" will yield a very unusual visual (not the right firstname/lastname sequence, no picture, ...).