Sean Whalen
d7366d088f
Rebased on top of master @ 2cda5bf (9.9.0), which added the ASN
source attribution work (#712, #713, #714, #715). Individual Copilot
iteration commits squashed into this single commit — the per-commit
history on the feature branch was iterative (add tests, fix lint,
move field, revert, etc.) and not worth preserving; GitHub squash-
merges PRs anyway.
### DMARCbis fields (new)
New fields from the DMARCbis XSD, plumbed through types, parsing, CSV
output, and the Elasticsearch / OpenSearch mappings:
- ``np`` — non-existent subdomain policy (``none`` / ``quarantine`` /
``reject``)
- ``testing`` — testing mode flag (``n`` / ``y``), replaces RFC 7489
``pct``
- ``discovery_method`` — policy discovery method (``psl`` /
``treewalk``)
- ``generator`` — report generator software identifier (metadata)
- ``human_result`` — optional descriptive text on DKIM / SPF results
RFC 7489 reports parse with ``None`` for DMARCbis-only fields.
### Forensic → failure rename
Forensic reports have been renamed to failure reports throughout the
project to reflect the proper naming since RFC 7489.
- Core: ``types.py``, ``__init__.py`` — ``ForensicReport`` →
``FailureReport``, ``parse_forensic_report`` →
``parse_failure_report``, report type ``"failure"``.
- Output modules: ``elastic.py``, ``opensearch.py``, ``splunk.py``,
``kafkaclient.py``, ``syslog.py``, ``gelf.py``, ``webhook.py``,
``loganalytics.py``, ``s3.py``.
- CLI: ``cli.py`` — args, config keys, index names
(``dmarc_failure``).
- Docs + dashboards: all markdown, Grafana JSON, Kibana NDJSON,
Splunk XML.
Backward compatibility preserved: old function / type names remain as
aliases (``parse_forensic_report = parse_failure_report``,
``ForensicReport = FailureReport``, etc.), CLI accepts both the old
(``save_forensic``, ``forensic_topic``) and new (``save_failure``,
``failure_topic``) config keys, and updated dashboards query both
old and new index / sourcetype names so data from before and after
the rename appears together.
### Rebase notes
Merge conflicts resolved in ``parsedmarc/constants.py`` (took bis's
10.0.0 bump), ``parsedmarc/__init__.py`` (combined bis's "failure"
wording with master's IPinfo MMDB mention), ``parsedmarc/elastic.py``
and ``parsedmarc/opensearch.py`` (kept master's ``source_asn`` /
``source_asn_name`` / ``source_asn_domain`` on the failure doc path
while renaming ``forensic_report`` → ``failure_report``), and
``CHANGELOG.md`` (10.0.0 entry now sits above the 9.9.0 entry).
All 324 tests pass; ``ruff check`` / ``ruff format --check`` clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.7 KiB
Using the Kibana dashboards
The Kibana DMARC dashboards are a human-friendly way to understand the results from incoming DMARC reports.
:::{note} The default dashboard is DMARC Summary. To switch between dashboards, click on the Dashboard link on the left side menu of Kibana. :::
DMARC Summary
As the name suggests, this dashboard is the best place to start reviewing your aggregate DMARC data.
Across the top of the dashboard, three pie charts display the percentage of alignment pass/fail for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Clicking on any chart segment will filter for that value.
:::{note} Messages should not be considered malicious just because they failed to pass DMARC; especially if you have just started collecting data. It may be a legitimate service that needs SPF and DKIM configured correctly. :::
Start by filtering the results to only show failed DKIM alignment. While DMARC passes if a message passes SPF or DKIM alignment, only DKIM alignment remains valid when a message is forwarded without changing the from address, which is often caused by a mailbox forwarding rule. This is because DKIM signatures are part of the message headers, whereas SPF relies on SMTP session headers.
Underneath the pie charts. you can see graphs of DMARC passage and message disposition over time.
Under the graphs you will find the most useful data tables on the dashboard. On the left, there is a list of organizations that are sending you DMARC reports. In the center, there is a list of sending servers grouped by the base domain in their reverse DNS. On the right, there is a list of email from domains, sorted by message volume.
By hovering your mouse over a data table value and using the magnifying glass icons, you can filter on our filter out different values. Start by looking at the Message Sources by Reverse DNS table. Find a sender that you recognize, such as an email marketing service, hover over it, and click on the plus (+) magnifying glass icon, to add a filter that only shows results for that sender. Now, look at the Message From Header table to the right. That shows you the domains that a sender is sending as, which might tell you which brand/business is using a particular service. With that information, you can contact them and have them set up DKIM.
:::{note} If you have a lot of B2C customers, you may see a high volume of emails as your domains coming from consumer email services, such as Google/Gmail and Yahoo! This occurs when customers have mailbox rules in place that forward emails from an old account to a new account, which is why DKIM authentication is so important, as mentioned earlier. Similar patterns may be observed with businesses who send from reverse DNS addressees of parent, subsidiary, and outdated brands. :::
Further down the dashboard, you can filter by source country or source IP address.
Tables showing SPF and DKIM alignment details are located under the IP address table.
:::{note} Previously, the alignment tables were included in a separate dashboard called DMARC Alignment Failures. That dashboard has been consolidated into the DMARC Summary dashboard. To view failures only, use the pie chart. :::
Any other filters work the same way. You can also add your own custom temporary filters by clicking on Add Filter at the upper right of the page.
DMARC Failure Samples
The DMARC Failure Samples dashboard contains information on DMARC failure reports (also known as ruf reports). These reports contain samples of emails that have failed to pass DMARC.
:::{note} Most recipients do not send failure/ruf reports at all to avoid privacy leaks. Some recipients (notably Chinese webmail services) will only supply the headers of sample emails. Very few provide the entire email. :::