Skip to content

Add email security posture review skill#971

Closed
BryanGM12 wants to merge 1 commit into
UnitOneAI:mainfrom
BryanGM12:codex/email-security-skill
Closed

Add email security posture review skill#971
BryanGM12 wants to merge 1 commit into
UnitOneAI:mainfrom
BryanGM12:codex/email-security-skill

Conversation

@BryanGM12

Copy link
Copy Markdown

/claim #963

Pull Request Checklist

  • Skill follows the format specification in CONTRIBUTING.md
  • At least one real framework is cited with correct control IDs
  • All framework references verified against primary sources (not blogs or AI output)
  • Prompt Injection Safety Notice section included
  • injection-hardened: true set in frontmatter
  • allowed-tools scoped to minimum necessary permissions
  • Tested with at least one AI coding agent (Codex)
  • No prohibited patterns per SECURITY.md
  • index.yaml updated with new skill entry

What This PR Does

Adds skills/network/email-security/, a new email security posture review skill for domain authentication, anti-spoofing, and SMTP transport controls.

This implements proposal #963 and covers:

  • sender inventory for primary domains, subdomains, non-sending domains, and third-party SaaS senders;
  • SPF authorization, lookup-limit risk, no-send posture, and DMARC alignment boundaries;
  • DKIM selector inventory, signing-domain alignment, key/selector ownership, and stale selector handling;
  • DMARC policy, subdomain behavior, aggregate/failure reporting, cross-domain report authorization, and staged enforcement;
  • MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, MX matching, and DANE considerations for DNSSEC-enabled mail environments;
  • Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, inbound gateway, forwarding, mailing list, ARC, and SaaS sender edge cases;
  • output safety rules for redacting customer domains, private report addresses, full headers, and report payloads.

It also adds six calibration fixtures:

  • 3 vulnerable examples under skills/network/email-security/tests/vulnerable/
  • 3 benign examples under skills/network/email-security/tests/benign/

Framework References

Primary references verified as live official sources:

  • RFC 9989, DMARC core protocol
  • RFC 9990, DMARC aggregate reporting
  • RFC 9991, DMARC failure reporting
  • RFC 7208, SPF
  • RFC 6376, DKIM
  • RFC 8461, MTA-STS
  • RFC 8460, SMTP TLS Reporting
  • CISA DMARC resource and BOD 18-01
  • Google Workspace sender and MTA-STS/TLS reporting guidance
  • Microsoft Defender for Office 365 email authentication overview

Validation

  • git diff --check
  • git diff --cached --check
  • index.yaml parsed with PyYAML; skill_count=46 matches actual skill entries and all indexed files exist
  • frontmatter required-field check across skills/**/SKILL.md and roles/**/SKILL.md
  • Markdown code-fence balance check for SKILL.md and all six fixtures
  • prohibited prompt-injection pattern scan over skills/network/email-security
  • ASCII scan for the new skill subtree
  • content marker checks for RFC 9989/9990/9991, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Not Evaluable guidance, and the domain posture output table
  • live reference checks returned HTTP 200 for all twelve references listed in the skill

Bounty Request

Author-tier new skill contribution. Requesting Intermediate consideration ($350) if accepted because this covers multiple provider environments and nuanced false-positive calibration across SPF, DKIM, DMARC, reporting, transport security, gateways, forwarding, mailing lists, and SaaS senders.

Payment details can be shared privately after maintainer acceptance.

@BryanGM12 BryanGM12 force-pushed the codex/email-security-skill branch from 6278ce5 to cfb893a Compare June 14, 2026 18:03
@BryanGM12 BryanGM12 requested a review from kamalsrini as a code owner June 14, 2026 18:03
@kamalsrini kamalsrini closed this Jun 15, 2026
@Neustradamus

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@kamalsrini: Why it has been closed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants