Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootsudo | Hacker News Reader

It's bad because people can manipulate email. It is not absolute. An overzealous email admin/exchange admin can work horrors.

But maybe that's just me. I've been an Exchange admin.

View on HN

For sure - anybody who can modify your mailstore can change emails - that's not really under debate. The same way anybody who has access to your hard drive can change your files.

The issue at hand here is whether the original sender can modify the message after you've received it.

I guess they can by brokering a deal with the bad actor in charge of your mail server. Unlikely but email is still bound to social manipulation.

We're in the "you're screwed regardless" territory here - like having an ISP who intercepts TLS connections and substitutes content as you download it. There's no real way to work around that, though you might be able to detect it if there are unforgeable signatures on some of the content (e.g. DKIM signatures from third parties on incoming emails) - though the intermediate can strip those too, so all you see is "unsigned" rather than "modified".

> if there are unforgeable signatures on some of the content (e.g. DKIM signatures from third parties on incoming emails)

FWIW, in many cases content can be changed even if signed with DKIM without breaking the signature.

http://noxxi.de/research/breaking-dkim-on-purpose-and-by-cha...

I think email clients should be rethinking how they communicate to users whether or not an email is signed, e.g. if the headers haven't been oversigned and/or the full body hasn't been signed then it may be better to just show the message as having been not signed at all.

Part of the reason I download all my email to my PC.

But then the DKIM will be broken, at least if the sender’s client properly signed it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com