SPF (Sender Policy Framework) is a cornerstone of email authentication, designed to prevent spoofing by specifying authorized mail servers. However, misconfigured SPF records can expose critical details about your infrastructure. This exposure provides attackers with valuable data, which can be exploited for targeted attacks, phishing campaigns, and service disruptions.
SPF-Induced Infrastructure Leakage
While SPF helps in email validation, its structure can reveal sensitive information about your mail servers and external dependencies. Attackers often scrape SPF records to map:
- Internal and external mail relay IPs
- Cloud email configurations (e.g., Google, Microsoft, AWS SES)
- Third-party service providers used for transactional or marketing emails
For example, an SPF record containing:
v=spf1 ip4:192.168.1.1 ip4:203.0.113.5 include:spf.vendor.com -allexposes both internal and public IPs, giving attackers critical insight into your network. This leakage can:
- Targeted phishing attacks by mimicking known servers
- DDoS attacks on identified mail relays
- Email spoofing bypass strategies by leveraging weaknesses in third-party SPF records
Common SPF Misconfigurations That Leak Infrastructure
Overuse of include: Statements
Using multiple include: directives without auditing them can expose external service dependencies. Some SaaS providers publish SPF records that include excessive details about their mail servers, making your organization’s infrastructure more transparent than necessary.
Example of a risky SPF record:
v=spf1 include:_spf.mailprovider.com include:_spf.crmtool.com include:_spf.marketingvendor.com -allEach include: statement expands the SPF scope, potentially revealing unnecessary details.
Mitigation:
- Review included SPF records to ensure they do not expose sensitive information.
- Use subdomains (e.g.,
email.example.com) for third-party email services to separate authentication policies.
Listing Direct Mail Server IPs (ip4: and ip6:)
Publishing direct mail server IP addresses in SPF records can expose your infrastructure to attackers.
Example of a poor configuration:
v=spf1 ip4:203.0.113.5 ip6:2001:db8::1 -allThis configuration tells attackers exactly where your mail servers are located.
Mitigation:
- Use a dedicated email relay or gateway instance instead of exposing direct mail servers.
- Prefer CIDR ranges over individual IPs to minimize specificity.
Permissive SPF Policies (+all, ?all)
While +all is a well-known misconfiguration, even ?all (neutral) can introduce security risks.
Example of a permissive policy:
v=spf1 include:_spf.provider.com ?allThis configuration allows SPF checks to pass regardless of sender IP validity, undermining its purpose.
Mitigation:
- Use
~all(soft fail) or-all(hard fail) based on enforcement needs.
SPF and Third-Party Email Services
Many organizations integrate external email services (e.g., SendGrid, Mailgun, AWS SES), but some providers publish SPF records containing detailed infrastructure information.
For instance, including include:_spf.sendgrid.net in your SPF record may expose SendGrid’s entire mail server network.
Mitigation:
- Use separate subdomains for third-party services (e.g.,
marketing.example.com). - Regularly audit third-party SPF records to assess exposure risks.
SPF Lookup Limits
SPF has a hard limit of 10 DNS lookups per record. Recursive includes (include:) and excessive mechanisms can cause SPF to exceed this limit, resulting in permerror and email deliverability failures.
Example of a problematic SPF record:
v=spf1 include:_spf.vendor1.com include:_spf.vendor2.com include:_spf.vendor3.com include:_spf.vendor4.com -allIf each vendor’s SPF record includes additional mechanisms, the total DNS lookup count can easily exceed 10.
Mitigation:
- Flatten SPF records using tools like OpenSPF.
- Prefer CIDR-based IP listings over
include:statements where feasible. - Consolidate authentication mechanisms (e.g., using DKIM and DMARC alongside SPF).
Delegate Email Relay Operations
Many organizations rely on email relays from providers such as Google Workspace and Microsoft Outlook. These relays allow you to send emails through their servers securely but require proper SPF configuration.
Google Workspace Email Relay
Google Workspace provides an email relay service that allows organizations to send emails through Google’s infrastructure while keeping their SPF records clean.
- Configuration Guide: Google Workspace Email Relay
Microsoft Outlook Email Relay
Outlook and Microsoft 365 offer similar relay options that require specific SPF includes to prevent delivery issues.
- Ensure you use
include:spf.protection.outlook.comfor proper SPF alignment. - Use Microsoft’s authenticated SMTP relay settings to send emails securely.
Mitigation:
- Follow the official provider guidelines for setting up email relays.
- Regularly audit relay configurations to prevent SPF failures.
Alternative Strategies to Reduce Exposure
Use Dedicated Relay Domains
Instead of publishing SPF records on your primary domain (example.com), create a relay-specific subdomain (spf-relay.example.com). This isolates mail authentication and reduces infrastructure exposure.
SPF Macros (%{i}, %{s}, %{h})
SPF macros allow dynamic sender validation without hardcoding specific IPs, reducing exposure while maintaining strict email policies.
Example:
v=spf1 ip4:%{i} -allStrengthen DMARC and DKIM Alignment
SPF alone is insufficient for robust email authentication. By enforcing strict DMARC (p=reject) and DKIM signing, organizations can minimize SPF reliance and reduce exposure risks.
Check Your Domain’s Email Authentication Setup
To check your SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configurations, use these tools that I created:
Need Expert Consultation?
If you need consultation on SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configuration, contact me Emre Savas on LinkedIn.
Leave a Reply