When security vulnerabilities are discovered by independent security researchers, they often lack the channels to report them properly. As a result, security vulnerabilities may be left unreported. This document defines a format (“security.txt”) to help organizations describe the process for security researchers to follow in order to report security vulnerabilities.
+
When security vulnerabilities are discovered by independent security researchers, they often lack the channels to report them properly. As a result, security vulnerabilities may be left unreported. This document defines a format (“security.txt”) to help organizations describe their vulnerability disclosure practices to make it easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
+
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable to report security vulnerabilities to organizations because there is no course of action laid out and no way indicated to contact the owner of a particular resource.
-
As per section 4 of [RFC2142], there is an existing convention of using the <SECURITY@domain> email address for communications regarding security vulnerabilities. That convention provides only a single, email-based channel of communication for security vulnerabilities per domain, and does not provide a way for domain owners to publish information about their security disclosure policies.
-
There are also contact conventions prescribed for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in section 2 of [RFC3013], for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in section 3.2 of [RFC2350] and for site operators in section 5.2 of [RFC2196]. As per [RFC7485], there is also contact information provided by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and domain registries for owners of IP addresses, autonomous system numbers (ASNs) and domain names. However, none of these address the issue of how security researchers can locate disclosure policies and contact information for organizations in order to report security vulnerabilities.
-
In this document, we define a richer, machine-parsable and extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure policies, which is not limited to email and also allows for additional features such as encryption. This format is designed to help assist with the security disclosure process by making it easier for organizations to designate the preferred steps for researchers to take when trying to reach out to them with security vulnerabilities.
-
Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as [ISO.29147.2018] or [CERT.CVD].
+
Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable to report security vulnerabilities to organizations because there is no way indicated to contact the owner of a particular resource and no information available about the vulnerability disclosure practices of such owner.
+
As per section 4 of [RFC2142], there is an existing convention of using the <SECURITY@domain> email address for communications regarding security vulnerabilities. That convention provides only a single, email-based channel of communication for security vulnerabilities per domain, and does not provide a way for domain owners to publish information about their security disclosure practices.
+
There are also contact conventions prescribed for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in section 2 of [RFC3013], for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in section 3.2 of [RFC2350] and for site operators in section 5.2 of [RFC2196]. As per [RFC7485], there is also contact information provided by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and domain registries for owners of IP addresses, autonomous system numbers (ASNs) and domain names. However, none of these address the issue of how security researchers can locate vulnerability disclosure practices and contact information for organizations in order to report security vulnerabilities.
+
In this document, we define a richer and more extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure practices and ways to contact them. Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as [ISO.29147.2018] or [CERT.CVD].
This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location that provides information for security researchers to assist in disclosing security vulnerabilities.
-
The file is named “security.txt”, and this file SHOULD be placed under the /.well-known/ path (“/.well-known/security.txt”) [RFC8615] of a domain name or IP address for web properties. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top level path (see Section 4.1).
-
For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC1945] as a resource of Internet Media Type “text/plain” with the default charset parameter set to “utf-8” per section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046], and it MUST be served with “https” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). For file systems and version control repositories a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system or source code project.
-
This text file contains multiple directives with different values. The “directive” is the first part of a field all the way up to the colon (“Contact:”) and follows the syntax defined for “field-name” in section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322]. Directives are case-insensitive (as per section 2.3 of [RFC5234]). The “value” comes after the directive (“https://example.com/security”) and follows the syntax defined for “unstructured” in section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322].
-
A “field” MUST always consist of a directive and a value (“Contact: https://example.com/security”). A security.txt file can have an unlimited number of fields. It is important to note that each field MUST appear on its own line. Unless specified otherwise by the field definition, multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single directive. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular field, any directive MAY appear multiple times.
+
This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location that provides information about the vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization. This is intended to help security researchers when disclosing security vulnerabilities.
+
By convention, the file is named “security.txt”.
+
When made available on HTTP servers, it MUST be placed under the /.well-known/ path (as “/.well-known/security.txt”) [RFC8615] of a domain name or IP address. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top level path (see Section 4.1). For file systems a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of the file system.
+
On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via HTTP 1.0 or a higher version and the “https” scheme (as per [RFC1945] and section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). It MUST have a Content-Type of “text/plain” with the default charset parameter set to “utf-8” (as per section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046]).
+
This text file contains multiple fields with different values. A field contains a “name” which is the first part of a field all the way up to the colon (“Contact:”) and follows the syntax defined for “field-name” in section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322]. Fields are case-insensitive (as per section 2.3 of [RFC5234]). The “value” comes after the field name (“https://example.com/security”) and follows the syntax defined for “unstructured” in section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322].
+
A “field” MUST always consist of a name and a value (“Contact: https://example.com/security”). A security.txt file can have an unlimited number of fields. It is important to note that each field MUST appear on its own line. Unless specified otherwise by the field definition, multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single field. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular field, any field MAY appear multiple times.
+
Implementors should be aware that some of the fields may contain URIs using percent-encoding (as per section 2.1 of [RFC3986]).
A “security.txt” file MUST only apply to the domain in the URI used to retrieve it, not to any of its subdomains or parent domains. A “security.txt” file that is found in a file system or version control repository MUST only apply to the folder or repository in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders, or repositories. However, it will apply to all subfolders.
-
Some examples appear below:
+
For HTTP servers, a “security.txt” file MUST only apply to the domain or IP address in the URI used to retrieve it, not to any of its subdomains or parent domains.
+
A “security.txt” file that is found in a file system MUST only apply to the folder in which it is located and that folder’s subfolders. The file does not apply to any of the folder’s parent or sibling folders.
+
Some examples appear below:
# The following only applies to example.com.
https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
@@ -564,7 +566,6 @@
# This is a comment.
-
One or more comments MAY be used as descriptive text immediately before the field. Parsers SHOULD associate the comments with the respective field. Only the line most immediately preceding a field SHOULD be associated with that field.
It is RECOMMENDED that a security.txt file be digitally signed using an OpenPGP cleartext signature as described in section 7 of [RFC4880]. When digital signatures are used, it is also RECOMMENDED that implementors use the “Canonical” directive (as per Section 3.5.2), thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate the location of the file.
+
It is RECOMMENDED that a security.txt file be digitally signed using an OpenPGP cleartext signature as described in section 7 of [RFC4880]. When digital signatures are used, it is also RECOMMENDED that implementors use the “Canonical” field (as per Section 3.5.2), thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate the location of the file.
When it comes to verifying the key used to generate the signature, it is always the security researcher’s responsibility to make sure the key being used is indeed one they trust.
This directive indicates a link to a page where security researchers are recognized for their reports. The page being referenced SHOULD list individuals or organizations that reported security vulnerabilities and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations SHOULD be careful to limit the vulnerability information being published in order to prevent future attacks.
-
If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
+
This field indicates a link to a page where security researchers are recognized for their reports. The page being referenced should list individuals or organizations that reported security vulnerabilities and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations should be careful to limit the vulnerability information being published in order to prevent future attacks.
+
If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
This directive indicates the canonical URI where the security.txt file is located, which is usually something like “https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt”. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). The purpose of this directive is to allow a digital signature to be applied to the location of the “security.txt” file.
-
This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
+
This field indicates the canonical URIs where the security.txt file is located, which is usually something like “https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt”. If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). The purpose of this field is to allow a digital signature to be applied to the locations of the “security.txt” file.
This directive indicates an address that researchers should use for reporting security vulnerabilities. The value MAY be an email address, a phone number and/or a web page with contact information. The “Contact:” directive MUST always be present in a security.txt file. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). Security email addresses SHOULD use the conventions defined in section 4 of [RFC2142].
-
The value MUST follow the URI syntax described in [RFC3986]. This means that “mailto” and “tel” URI schemes MUST be used when specifying email addresses and telephone numbers, as defined in [RFC6068] and [RFC3966]. When the value of this directive is an email address, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per Section 3.5.4).
+
This field indicates an address that researchers should use for reporting security vulnerabilities such as an email address, a phone number and/or a web page with contact information. The “Contact” field MUST always be present in a security.txt file. If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). Security email addresses should use the conventions defined in section 4 of [RFC2142].
+
The value MUST follow the URI syntax described in [RFC3986]. This means that “mailto” and “tel” URI schemes must be used when specifying email addresses and telephone numbers, as defined in [RFC6068] and [RFC3966]. When the value of this field is an email address, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per Section 3.5.4).
The precedence SHOULD be in listed order. The first field is the preferred method of contact. In the example below, the email address is the preferred method of contact.
This directive indicates an encryption key that security researchers SHOULD use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT appear in this field - instead the value of this field MUST be a URI pointing to a location where the key can be retrieved. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
-
When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the key, it is always the security researcher’s responsibility to make sure the key being specified is indeed one they trust. Researchers MUST NOT assume that this key is used to generate the digital signature referenced in Section 3.4.
+
This field indicates an encryption key that security researchers should use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT appear in this field - instead the value of this field MUST be a URI pointing to a location where the key can be retrieved. If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
+
When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the key, it is always the security researcher’s responsibility to make sure the key being specified is indeed one they trust. Researchers must not assume that this key is used to generate the digital signature referenced in Section 3.4.
Example of an OpenPGP key available from a web server:
The “Hiring” directive is used for linking to the vendor’s security-related job positions. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
+
This field indicates the date/time after which the data contained in the “security.txt” file is considered stale and should not be used (as per Section 6.2). The value of this field follows the format defined in section 3.3 of [RFC5322].
+
This field MUST NOT appear more than once.
-Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
+Expires: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 18:37:07 -0800
This directive indicates a link to where the security policy and/or disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers understand what an organization is looking for and how to report security vulnerabilities. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
-
Example:
+
The “Hiring” field is used for linking to the vendor’s security-related job positions. If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
This directive can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY list multiple values, separated by commas. If this directive is included then at least one value MUST be listed. The values within this set are language tags (as defined in [RFC5646]). If this directive is absent, security researchers MAY assume that English is the default language to be used (as per section 4.5 of [RFC2277]).
-
The order in which they appear MUST NOT be interpreted as an indication of priority - rather these MUST be interpreted as all being of equal priority.
-
This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
-
Example (English, Spanish and French):
+
This field indicates a link to where the vulnerability disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers understand the organization’s vulnerability reporting practices. If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
This field can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY list multiple values, separated by commas. If this field is included then at least one value MUST be listed. The values within this set are language tags (as defined in [RFC5646]). If this field is absent, security researchers may assume that English is the language to be used (as per section 4.5 of [RFC2277]).
+
The order in which they appear MUST NOT be interpreted as an indication of priority - rather these MUST be interpreted as all being of equal priority.
Web-based services SHOULD place the security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt as per [RFC8615]. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top-level path or redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]) to the security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path.
-
If retrieval of a “security.txt” file from the top-level path results in a redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]), the implementors MUST NOT follow that redirect if it leads to another domain or subdomain but SHOULD follow that redirect within the same domain name (but not different subdomain on the same domain).
-
The guidance regarding redirects SHOULD NOT apply to the resource locations that appear within the file.
+
Web-based services MUST place the security.txt file under the “/.well-known/” path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt as per [RFC8615]. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top-level path or redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]) to the security.txt file under the “/.well-known/” path. If a “security.txt” file is present in both locations, the one in the “/.well-known/” path MUST be used.
+
Retrieval of “security.txt” files and resources indicated within such files may result in a redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]). Researchers should perform additional triage (as per Section 6.1) to make sure these redirects are not malicious or point to resources controlled by an attacker.
An internal host is “a host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by a firewall” (as per section 3 of [RFC6887]) and might not be accessible directly from the Internet. On such systems, a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory.
Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be extended over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via an IANA registry for directives as defined in Section 7.2. Any directives registered via that process MUST be considered optional. To encourage extensibility and interoperability, implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not explicitly support.
-
In general, implementors SHOULD “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others” (as per [RFC0793]).
+
Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be extended over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via an IANA registry for fields as defined in Section 7.2. Any fields registered via that process MUST be considered optional. To encourage extensibility and interoperability, implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not explicitly support.
+
In general, implementors should “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others” (as per [RFC0793]).
sign-footer = < OpenPGP signature from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
-unsigned = *line [can-field eol]
- *line (contact-field eol)
+unsigned = *line (contact-field eol)
+ *line [expires-field eol]
*line [lang-field eol] *line
- ; the order of elements is not important
+ ; the order of fields within the file is not important
line = (field / comment) eol
eol = *WSP [CR] LF
field = ack-field /
+ can-field /
contact-field /
encryption-field /
hiring-field /
@@ -769,27 +775,31 @@
contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri
-lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
-
-uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
+expires-field = "Expires" fs SP date-time
encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri
hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri
+lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
+
policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri
-lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
+date-time = < imported from section 3.3 of [RFC5322] >
+
+lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
lang-values = lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
+uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
+
ext-field = field-name fs SP unstructured
field-name = < imported from section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322] >
unstructured = < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
-
“ext-field” refers to extension fields, which are discussed in Section 4.4
+
“ext-field” refers to extension fields, which are discussed in Section 4.3
An attacker that has compromised a website is able to compromise the “security.txt” file as well or setup a redirect to their own site. This can result in security reports not being received by the organization or sent to the attacker.
-
To protect against this, organizations SHOULD digitally sign their “security.txt” files (as per Section 3.4), use the canonical directive to sign the location of the file (as per Section 3.5.2), and regularly monitor the file and the referenced resources to detect tampering.
-
Security researchers SHOULD check the “security.txt” file including verifying the digital signature and checking any available historical records before using the information contained in the file. If “security.txt” file looks suspicious or compromised, it SHOULD NOT be used.
-
To avoid redirect attacks, redirects for these files MUST NOT be followed when the file is placed in the top level path and they lead to a different domain (as per Section 4.1). This restriction is because the top level path is potentially more likely to be compromised as opposed to the “.well-known” path.
+
To protect against this, organizations should digitally sign their “security.txt” files (as per Section 3.4), use the “Canonical” field to sign the locations of the file (as per Section 3.5.2), and regularly monitor the file and the referenced resources to detect tampering.
+
Security researchers should triage the “security.txt” file including verifying the digital signature and checking any available historical records before using the information contained in the file. If the “security.txt” file looks suspicious or compromised, it should not be used.
+
When retrieving the file and any resources referenced in the file, researchers should record any redirects since they can lead to a different domain or IP address controlled by an attacker. Further inspections of such redirects is recommended before using the information.
If information and resources referenced in a “security.txt” file are incorrect or not kept up to date, this can result in security reports not being received by the organization or sent to incorrect contacts, thus exposing possible security issues to third parties. Not having a security.txt file may be preferable to having stale information in this file.
-
Organizations SHOULD ensure that information in this file and any referenced resources such as web pages, email addresses and telephone numbers are kept current, are accessible, controlled by the organization, and are kept secure.
+
If information and resources referenced in a “security.txt” file are incorrect or not kept up to date, this can result in security reports not being received by the organization or sent to incorrect contacts, thus exposing possible security issues to third parties. Not having a security.txt file may be preferable to having stale information in this file. Organizations are also encouraged to use the “Expires” field (see Section 3.5.5) to indicate to researchers when the data in the file is no longer valid.
+
Organizations should ensure that information in this file and any referenced resources such as web pages, email addresses and telephone numbers are kept current, are accessible, controlled by the organization, and are kept secure.
It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files that are extraordinarily large or otherwise malformed in an attempt to discover or exploit weaknesses in parsing code. Implementors SHOULD make sure that any such code is robust against large and malformed files. The ABNF grammar (as defined in Section 5) SHOULD be used as a way to verify these files.
+
It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files that are extraordinarily large or otherwise malformed in an attempt to discover or exploit weaknesses in parsing code. Implementors should make sure that any such code is robust against large or malformed files and fields and may choose not to parse files larger than 32 KBs, having fields longer than 2,048 characters or containing more than 1,000 lines. The ABNF grammar (as defined in Section 5) can also be used as a way to verify these files.
The same concerns apply to any other resources referenced within security.txt files, as well as any security reports received as a result of publishing this file. Such resources and reports may be hostile, malformed or malicious.
The presence of a security.txt file might be interpreted by researchers as providing permission to do security testing against that asset. This might result in increased testing against an organization by researchers. On the other hand, a decision not to publish a security.txt file might be interpreted by the organization operating that website to be a way to signal to researchers that permission to test that particular site or project is denied. This might result in pushback against researchers reporting security issues to that organization.
-
Therefore, implementors MUST NOT assume that presence or absence of a “security.txt” file grants or denies permission for security testing. Any such permission MAY be defined in a security or disclosure policy (as per Section 3.5.6) or a new directive (as per Section 4.4).
+
Therefore, implementors shouldn’t assume that presence or absence of a “security.txt” file grants or denies permission for security testing. Any such permission may be indicated in the company’s vulnerability disclosure policy (as per Section 3.5.7) or a new field (as per Section 4.3).
In multi-user / multi-tenant environments, it may possible for a user to take over the location of the “security.txt” file. Organizations SHOULD reserve the “security.txt” namespace at the root to ensure no third-party can create a page with the “security.txt” AND “/.well-known/security.txt” names.
+
In multi-user / multi-tenant environments, it may possible for a user to take over the location of the “security.txt” file. Organizations should reserve the “security.txt” namespace at the root to ensure no third-party can create a page with the “security.txt” AND “/.well-known/security.txt” names.
To protect a “security.txt” file from being tampered with in transit, implementors MUST use HTTPS (as per [RFC2818]) when serving the file itself and for retrieval of any web URLs referenced in it (except when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the TLS handshake, implementors MUST validate the provided X.509 certificate in accordance with [RFC6125] and the following considerations:
+
To protect a “security.txt” file from being tampered with in transit, implementors should use HTTPS (as per [RFC2818]) when serving the file itself and for retrieval of any web URLs referenced in it (except when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the TLS handshake, implementors should validate the provided X.509 certificate in accordance with [RFC6125] and the following considerations:
Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID identifiers.
DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard character ‘*’ as the complete left-most label within the identifier.
-
The certificate MAY be checked for revocation via the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960], certificate revocation lists (CRLs), or similar mechanisms.
-
As an additional layer of protection, it is also RECOMMENDED that organizations digitally sign their “security.txt” file with OpenPGP (as per Section 3.4). Also, to protect security reports from being tampered with or observed while in transit, organizations SHOULD specify encryption keys (as per Section 3.5.4) unless HTTPS is being used.
-
However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope for this specification. Implementors MUST establish other secure means to verify them.
+
The certificate may also be checked for revocation via the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960], certificate revocation lists (CRLs), or similar mechanisms.
+
In cases where the “security.txt” file cannot be served via HTTPS or is being served with an invalid certificate, additional human triage is recommended since the contents may have been modified while in transit.
+
As an additional layer of protection, it is also recommended that organizations digitally sign their “security.txt” file with OpenPGP (as per Section 3.4). Also, to protect security reports from being tampered with or observed while in transit, organizations should specify encryption keys (as per Section 3.5.4) unless HTTPS is being used.
+
However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope for this specification. Security researchers need to establish other secure means to verify them.
Similar to concerns in [RFC2142], denial of service attacks via spam reports would become easier once a “security.txt” file is published by an organization. In addition, there is an increased likelihood of reports being sent in an automated fashion and/or as result of automated scans without human triage.
-
Organizations SHOULD weigh the advantages of publishing this file versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to triage security reports.
-
Security researchers SHOULD consult the organization’s policy, if available, before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from automated scans.
+
Similar to concerns in [RFC2142], denial of service attacks via spam reports would become easier once a “security.txt” file is published by an organization. In addition, there is an increased likelihood of reports being sent in an automated fashion and/or as result of automated scans without human triage. Attackers can also use this file as a way to spam unrelated third parties by listing their resources and/or contact information.
+
Organizations need to weigh the advantages of publishing this file versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to triage security reports.
+
Security researchers should review all information within the “security.txt” file before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from automated scans.
IANA is requested to create the “security.txt Header Fields” registry in accordance with [RFC8126]. This registry will contain header fields for use in security.txt files, defined by this specification.
+
IANA is requested to create the “security.txt Fields” registry in accordance with [RFC8126]. This registry will contain fields for use in security.txt files, defined by this specification.
New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the “Expert Review” guidelines as described in sections 4.5 and 5 of [RFC8126]. Any new field thus registered is considered optional by this specification unless a new version of this specification is published.
-
Designated Experts are expected to check whether a proposed registration or update makes sense in the context of this specification and provides value to the wider Internet community.
+
Designated Experts are expected to check whether a proposed registration or update makes sense in the context of industry accepted vulnerability disclosure processes such as [ISO.29147.2018] and [CERT.CVD], and provides value to organizations and researchers using this format.
New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:
@@ -898,6 +909,13 @@
Status: current
Change controller: IESG
+ Field Name: Expires
+ Description: specifies the date/time after which the data in this file is considered stale
+ Multiple Appearances: No
+ Published in: this document
+ Status: current
+ Change controller: IESG
+
Field Name: Encryption
Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication
Multiple Appearances: Yes
@@ -1017,11 +1035,6 @@
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
index e361b6f..acfec85 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
@@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ When security vulnerabilities are discovered by independent
security researchers, they
often lack the channels to report them properly. As a result,
security vulnerabilities may be left unreported. This document defines a format
-("security.txt") to help organizations describe the process for security
-researchers to follow in order to report security vulnerabilities.
+("security.txt") to help organizations describe their vulnerability disclosure practices
+to make it easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.
--- middle
@@ -46,15 +46,16 @@ researchers to follow in order to report security vulnerabilities.
Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable
to report security vulnerabilities to organizations because there is
-no course of action laid out and no way indicated to contact the owner of a particular
-resource.
+no way indicated to contact the owner of a particular
+resource and no information available about the vulnerability disclosure practices
+of such owner.
As per section 4 of {{?RFC2142}}, there is an existing convention
of using the \ email address for communications regarding
security vulnerabilities. That convention provides only a single, email-based
channel of communication for security vulnerabilities per domain, and does not provide
a way for domain owners to publish information about their security disclosure
-policies.
+practices.
There are also contact conventions prescribed for Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
in section 2 of {{?RFC3013}}, for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs)
@@ -62,21 +63,15 @@ in section 3.2 of {{?RFC2350}} and for site operators in section 5.2 of
{{?RFC2196}}. As per {{?RFC7485}}, there is also contact information provided by
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and domain registries for owners of IP
addresses, autonomous system numbers (ASNs) and domain names. However, none of
-these address the issue of how security researchers can locate disclosure
-policies and contact information for organizations in order to report
+these address the issue of how security researchers can locate vulnerability disclosure
+practices and contact information for organizations in order to report
security vulnerabilities.
-In this document, we define a richer, machine-parsable and extensible way
+In this document, we define a richer and more extensible way
for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure
-policies, which is not limited to email and also allows for additional features
-such as encryption. This format is designed to help
-assist with the security disclosure process by making it easier
-for organizations to designate the preferred steps for researchers to take
-when trying to reach out to them with security vulnerabilities.
-
-Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document.
-Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as
-{{ISO.29147.2018}} or {{CERT.CVD}}.
+practices and ways to contact them. Other details of vulnerability disclosure
+are outside the scope of this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other
+documents such as {{ISO.29147.2018}} or {{CERT.CVD}}.
## Terminology
@@ -96,37 +91,45 @@ Development of this draft takes place on Github at: https://github.com/securityt
# The Specification
This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location
-that provides information for security researchers to assist
-in disclosing security vulnerabilities.
+that provides information about the vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization.
+This is intended to help security researchers when disclosing security vulnerabilities.
+
+By convention, the file is named "security.txt".
-The file is named "security.txt", and this file SHOULD be placed under the
-/.well-known/ path ("/.well-known/security.txt") {{!RFC8615}} of a domain name or IP address for web
-properties. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top level path (see {{weblocation}}).
+When made available on HTTP servers, it MUST be placed under the
+/.well-known/ path (as "/.well-known/security.txt") {{!RFC8615}} of a domain name or IP address.
+For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top level path (see {{weblocation}}).
+For file systems a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of the file system.
-For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) {{!RFC1945}} as a resource of Internet Media Type "text/plain" with the default charset parameter set to "utf-8" per section 4.1.3 of {{!RFC2046}}, and it MUST be served with "https" (as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}). For file systems and version control repositories a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system or source code project.
+On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via HTTP 1.0 or a higher version
+and the "https" scheme (as per {{!RFC1945}} and section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}). It MUST have a Content-Type of "text/plain"
+with the default charset parameter set to "utf-8" (as per section 4.1.3 of {{!RFC2046}}).
-This text file contains multiple directives
-with different values. The "directive" is the first part of a field all the way up
+This text file contains multiple fields with different values. A field contains a "name" which is the first part of a field all the way up
to the colon ("Contact:") and follows the syntax defined for "field-name" in section 3.6.8
-of {{!RFC5322}}. Directives are case-insensitive (as per section 2.3 of {{!RFC5234}}).
-The "value" comes after the directive ("https://example.com/security") and follows the syntax
+of {{!RFC5322}}. Fields are case-insensitive (as per section 2.3 of {{!RFC5234}}).
+The "value" comes after the field name ("https://example.com/security") and follows the syntax
defined for "unstructured" in section 3.2.5 of {{!RFC5322}}.
-A "field" MUST always consist of a directive and a value
+A "field" MUST always consist of a name and a value
("Contact: https://example.com/security"). A security.txt file
can have an unlimited number of fields. It is important to note that each field MUST appear on
its own line. Unless specified otherwise by the field definition,
-multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single directive.
-Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular field, any directive MAY appear
+multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single field.
+Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular field, any field MAY appear
multiple times.
+Implementors should be aware that some of the fields may
+contain URIs using percent-encoding (as per section 2.1 of {{!RFC3986}}).
+
## Scope of the File
-A "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the domain in the URI used to retrieve it,
-not to any of its subdomains or parent domains. A "security.txt" file that is found
-in a file system or version control repository MUST only apply to the folder
-or repository in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders,
-or repositories. However, it will apply to all subfolders.
+For HTTP servers, a "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the domain
+or IP address in the URI used to retrieve it, not to any of its subdomains or parent domains.
+
+A "security.txt" file that is found in a file system MUST only apply to the folder
+in which it is located and that folder's subfolders. The file does not apply
+to any of the folder's parent or sibling folders.
Some examples appear below:
@@ -159,11 +162,6 @@ Example:
# This is a comment.
~~~~~~~~~~
-One or more comments MAY be used as descriptive text immediately
-before the field. Parsers SHOULD associate the comments with the
-respective field. Only the line most immediately preceding a field SHOULD
-be associated with that field.
-
## Line Separator
Every line MUST end either with a carriage return and line feed
@@ -174,7 +172,7 @@ characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / %x0A).
It is RECOMMENDED that a security.txt file be digitally signed
using an OpenPGP cleartext signature as described in
section 7 of {{!RFC4880}}. When digital signatures are used, it is also
-RECOMMENDED that implementors use the "Canonical" directive (as per {{canonical}}),
+RECOMMENDED that implementors use the "Canonical" field (as per {{canonical}}),
thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate the location of the file.
When it comes to verifying the key used to generate the signature, it is always
@@ -185,14 +183,14 @@ used is indeed one they trust.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments}
-This directive indicates a link to a page where security
+This field indicates a link to a page where security
researchers are recognized for their reports. The page being referenced
-SHOULD list individuals or organizations that reported security vulnerabilities
-and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations SHOULD be careful
+should list individuals or organizations that reported security vulnerabilities
+and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations should be careful
to limit the vulnerability information being published in order
to prevent future attacks.
-If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}).
Example:
@@ -214,33 +212,32 @@ We would like to thank the following researchers:
### Canonical {#canonical}
-This directive indicates the canonical URI where the security.txt file is located,
+This field indicates the canonical URIs where the security.txt file is located,
which is usually something like "https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt".
-If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
-(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}). The purpose of this directive is to allow
-a digital signature to be applied to the location of the "security.txt" file.
-
-This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
+If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}). The purpose of this field is to allow
+a digital signature to be applied to the locations of the "security.txt" file.
~~~~~~~~~~
-Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+Canonical: https://www.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+Canonical: https://someserver.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
~~~~~~~~~~
### Contact {#contact}
-This directive indicates an address that researchers
+This field indicates an address that researchers
should use for reporting security
-vulnerabilities. The value MAY be an email address, a phone number and/or a
-web page with contact information. The "Contact:" directive MUST
-always be present in a security.txt file. If this directive indicates a web URL,
+vulnerabilities such as an email address, a phone number and/or a
+web page with contact information. The "Contact" field MUST
+always be present in a security.txt file. If this field indicates a web URL,
then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}).
-Security email addresses SHOULD use the conventions defined in section
+Security email addresses should use the conventions defined in section
4 of {{!RFC2142}}.
The value MUST follow the URI syntax described in {{!RFC3986}}.
-This means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes MUST be used
+This means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes must be used
when specifying email addresses and telephone numbers, as defined in {{!RFC6068}}
-and {{!RFC3966}}. When the value of this directive is an email address,
+and {{!RFC3966}}. When the value of this field is an email address,
it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per {{encryption}}).
The precedence SHOULD be in listed order. The first field is the preferred
@@ -249,22 +246,23 @@ the preferred method of contact.
~~~~~~~~~~
Contact: mailto:security@example.com
+Contact: mailto:security%2Buri%2Bencoded@example.com
Contact: tel:+1-201-555-0123
Contact: https://example.com/security-contact.html
~~~~~~~~~~
### Encryption {#encryption}
-This directive indicates an encryption key that
-security researchers SHOULD use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT
+This field indicates an encryption key that
+security researchers should use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT
appear in this field - instead the value of this field
MUST be a URI pointing to a location where the key can be retrieved.
-If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}).
When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the key, it is always the security
researcher's responsibility to make sure the key being specified is indeed one
-they trust. Researchers MUST NOT assume that this key is
+they trust. Researchers must not assume that this key is
used to generate the digital signature referenced in {{signature}}.
Example of an OpenPGP key available from a web server:
@@ -285,10 +283,22 @@ Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint:
Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
~~~~~~~~~~
+### Expires {#expires}
+
+This field indicates the date/time after which the data contained in the "security.txt"
+file is considered stale and should not be used (as per {{stale}}). The value of this field follows
+the format defined in section 3.3 of {{!RFC5322}}.
+
+This field MUST NOT appear more than once.
+
+~~~~~~~~~~
+Expires: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 18:37:07 -0800
+~~~~~~~~~~
+
### Hiring {#hiring}
-The "Hiring" directive is used for linking to the vendor's security-related job positions.
-If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+The "Hiring" field is used for linking to the vendor's security-related job positions.
+If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}).
~~~~~~~~~~
@@ -297,32 +307,32 @@ Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
### Policy {#policy}
-This directive indicates a link to where the security policy and/or
-disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers understand
-what an organization is looking for and how to report security vulnerabilities.
-If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+This field indicates a link to where the vulnerability disclosure policy is located.
+This can help security researchers understand
+the organization's vulnerability reporting practices.
+If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
(as per section 2.7.2 of {{!RFC7230}}).
Example:
~~~~~~~~~~
-Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
+Policy: https://example.com/disclosure-policy.html
~~~~~~~~~~
### Preferred-Languages {#preflang}
-This directive can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that
+This field can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that
are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY list multiple
-values, separated by commas. If this directive is included then at least
+values, separated by commas. If this field is included then at least
one value MUST be listed. The values within this set are language tags
-(as defined in {{!RFC5646}}). If this directive is absent, security researchers
-MAY assume that English is the default language to be used (as per section 4.5
+(as defined in {{!RFC5646}}). If this field is absent, security researchers
+may assume that English is the language to be used (as per section 4.5
of {{!RFC2277}}).
The order in which they appear MUST NOT be interpreted as an indication of
priority - rather these MUST be interpreted as all being of equal priority.
-This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
+This field MUST NOT appear more than once.
Example (English, Spanish and French):
@@ -377,17 +387,14 @@ Version: GnuPG v2.2
## Web-based services {#weblocation}
-Web-based services SHOULD place the security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+Web-based services MUST place the security.txt file under the "/.well-known/" path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
as per {{!RFC8615}}. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top-level path
-or redirect (as per section 6.4 of {{!RFC7231}}) to the security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path.
-
-If retrieval of a "security.txt" file from the top-level path results in a redirect (as per
-section 6.4 of {{!RFC7231}}), the implementors MUST NOT follow that
-redirect if it leads to another domain or subdomain
-but SHOULD follow that redirect within the same domain name
-(but not different subdomain on the same domain).
+or redirect (as per section 6.4 of {{!RFC7231}}) to the security.txt file under the "/.well-known/" path. If a "security.txt" file
+is present in both locations, the one in the "/.well-known/" path MUST be used.
-The guidance regarding redirects SHOULD NOT apply to the resource locations that appear within the file.
+Retrieval of "security.txt" files and resources indicated within such files may result in a redirect (as per
+section 6.4 of {{!RFC7231}}). Researchers should perform additional triage (as per {{redirects}}) to make sure these redirects
+are not malicious or point to resources controlled by an attacker.
## Filesystems
@@ -403,22 +410,16 @@ Example file system:
/security.txt
~~~~~~~~~~
-## Internal hosts
-
-An internal host is "a host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by a firewall" (as
-per section 3 of {{!RFC6887}}) and might not be accessible directly from the Internet.
-On such systems, a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory.
-
## Extensibility {#extensibility}
Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be extended
over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore,
-extensibility is provided via an IANA registry for directives as defined
-in {{registry}}. Any directives registered via that process MUST be
+extensibility is provided via an IANA registry for fields as defined
+in {{registry}}. Any fields registered via that process MUST be
considered optional. To encourage extensibility and interoperability,
implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not explicitly support.
-In general, implementors SHOULD "be conservative in what you do,
+In general, implementors should "be conservative in what you do,
be liberal in what you accept from others" (as per {{?RFC0793}}).
# File Format Description and ABNF Grammar {#abnf}
@@ -438,16 +439,17 @@ sign-header = < headers and line from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
sign-footer = < OpenPGP signature from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
-unsigned = *line [can-field eol]
- *line (contact-field eol)
+unsigned = *line (contact-field eol)
+ *line [expires-field eol]
*line [lang-field eol] *line
- ; the order of elements is not important
+ ; the order of fields within the file is not important
line = (field / comment) eol
eol = *WSP [CR] LF
field = ack-field /
+ can-field /
contact-field /
encryption-field /
hiring-field /
@@ -464,20 +466,24 @@ can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri
contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri
-lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
-
-uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
+expires-field = "Expires" fs SP date-time
encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri
hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri
+lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
+
policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri
-lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
+date-time = < imported from section 3.3 of [RFC5322] >
+
+lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
lang-values = lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
+uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
+
ext-field = field-name fs SP unstructured
field-name = < imported from section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322] >
@@ -499,31 +505,31 @@ the "security.txt" file as well or setup a redirect to their own site.
This can result in security reports not being received by the organization
or sent to the attacker.
-To protect against this, organizations SHOULD digitally sign their "security.txt"
-files (as per {{signature}}), use the canonical directive to sign the location
+To protect against this, organizations should digitally sign their "security.txt"
+files (as per {{signature}}), use the "Canonical" field to sign the locations
of the file (as per {{canonical}}), and regularly monitor the file and
the referenced resources to detect tampering.
-Security researchers SHOULD check the "security.txt" file including verifying
+Security researchers should triage the "security.txt" file including verifying
the digital signature and checking any available historical records before using the information
-contained in the file. If "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised,
-it SHOULD NOT be used.
+contained in the file. If the "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised,
+it should not be used.
-To avoid redirect attacks, redirects for these files MUST NOT be followed
-when the file is placed in the top level path and they lead to a different
-domain (as per {{weblocation}}). This restriction is because the top level
-path is potentially more likely to be compromised as opposed to the
-".well-known" path.
+When retrieving the file and any resources referenced in the file, researchers should record
+any redirects since they can lead to a different domain or IP address controlled by an attacker. Further
+inspections of such redirects is recommended before using the information.
-## Incorrect or Stale Information
+## Incorrect or Stale Information {#stale}
If information and resources referenced in a "security.txt" file are incorrect
or not kept up to date, this can result in security reports not being received
by the organization or sent to incorrect contacts, thus exposing possible
security issues to third parties. Not having a security.txt file may be preferable
-to having stale information in this file.
+to having stale information in this file. Organizations are also encouraged to
+use the "Expires" field (see {{expires}}) to indicate to researchers when
+the data in the file is no longer valid.
-Organizations SHOULD ensure that information in this file and any referenced
+Organizations should ensure that information in this file and any referenced
resources such as web pages, email addresses and telephone numbers
are kept current, are accessible, controlled by the organization,
and are kept secure.
@@ -532,9 +538,11 @@ and are kept secure.
It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files that are extraordinarily
large or otherwise malformed in an attempt to discover or exploit weaknesses
-in parsing code. Implementors SHOULD make sure that any such code
-is robust against large and malformed files. The ABNF grammar (as defined in
-{{abnf}}) SHOULD be used as a way to verify these files.
+in parsing code. Implementors should make sure that any such code
+is robust against large or malformed files and fields and may choose not to parse
+files larger than 32 KBs, having fields longer than 2,048 characters or
+containing more than 1,000 lines. The ABNF grammar (as defined in
+{{abnf}}) can also be used as a way to verify these files.
The same concerns apply to any other resources referenced within security.txt
files, as well as any security reports received as a result of publishing
@@ -550,24 +558,24 @@ organization operating that website to be a way to signal to researchers
that permission to test that particular site or project is denied. This might result in pushback against
researchers reporting security issues to that organization.
-Therefore, implementors MUST NOT assume that presence or absence of
+Therefore, implementors shouldn't assume that presence or absence of
a "security.txt" file grants or denies permission for security testing.
-Any such permission MAY be defined in a security or disclosure policy
-(as per {{policy}}) or a new directive (as per {{extensibility}}).
+Any such permission may be indicated in the company's vulnerability disclosure policy
+(as per {{policy}}) or a new field (as per {{extensibility}}).
## Multi-user Environments
In multi-user / multi-tenant environments, it may possible for a user to take
-over the location of the "security.txt" file. Organizations SHOULD reserve
+over the location of the "security.txt" file. Organizations should reserve
the "security.txt" namespace at the root to ensure no third-party can create a page with
the "security.txt" AND "/.well-known/security.txt" names.
## Protecting Data in Transit
-To protect a "security.txt" file from being tampered with in transit, implementors MUST use
+To protect a "security.txt" file from being tampered with in transit, implementors should use
HTTPS (as per {{!RFC2818}}) when serving the file itself and for retrieval of any web URLs
referenced in it (except when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the TLS
-handshake, implementors MUST validate the provided X.509 certificate
+handshake, implementors should validate the provided X.509 certificate
in accordance with {{!RFC6125}} and the following considerations:
- Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID identifiers.
@@ -575,17 +583,21 @@ in accordance with {{!RFC6125}} and the following considerations:
- DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard
character '*' as the complete left-most label within the identifier.
-The certificate MAY be checked for revocation via the Online Certificate Status
+The certificate may also be checked for revocation via the Online Certificate Status
Protocol (OCSP) {{!RFC6960}}, certificate revocation lists (CRLs), or similar mechanisms.
-As an additional layer of protection, it is also RECOMMENDED that
+In cases where the "security.txt" file cannot be served via HTTPS or is
+being served with an invalid certificate, additional human triage is recommended since
+the contents may have been modified while in transit.
+
+As an additional layer of protection, it is also recommended that
organizations digitally sign their "security.txt" file with OpenPGP (as per {{signature}}).
Also, to protect security reports from being tampered with or observed while in transit,
-organizations SHOULD specify encryption keys (as per {{encryption}}) unless
+organizations should specify encryption keys (as per {{encryption}}) unless
HTTPS is being used.
However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope
-for this specification. Implementors MUST establish other secure means to
+for this specification. Security researchers need to establish other secure means to
verify them.
## Spam and Spurious Reports
@@ -594,15 +606,15 @@ Similar to concerns in {{!RFC2142}}, denial of service attacks via spam reports
would become easier once a "security.txt" file is published by
an organization. In addition, there is an increased likelihood of reports
being sent in an automated fashion and/or as result of automated scans without
-human triage.
+human triage. Attackers can also use this file as a way to spam unrelated
+third parties by listing their resources and/or contact information.
-Organizations SHOULD weigh the advantages of publishing this file versus
+Organizations need to weigh the advantages of publishing this file versus
the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to triage
security reports.
-Security researchers SHOULD consult the organization's policy, if available,
-before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from
-automated scans.
+Security researchers should review all information within the "security.txt"
+file before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from automated scans.
# IANA Considerations
@@ -625,10 +637,10 @@ Specification document(s): this document
Status: permanent
-## Registry for security.txt Header Fields {#registry}
+## Registry for security.txt Fields {#registry}
-IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Header Fields" registry in
-accordance with {{?RFC8126}}. This registry will contain header fields for
+IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Fields" registry in
+accordance with {{?RFC8126}}. This registry will contain fields for
use in security.txt files, defined by this specification.
New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the
@@ -637,8 +649,9 @@ New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the
by this specification unless a new version of this specification is published.
Designated Experts are expected to check whether a proposed registration or update
-makes sense in the context of this specification and provides value to the wider
-Internet community.
+makes sense in the context of industry accepted vulnerability disclosure processes
+such as {{ISO.29147.2018}} and {{CERT.CVD}}, and provides value to organizations
+and researchers using this format.
New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:
@@ -678,6 +691,13 @@ The initial registry contains these values:
Status: current
Change controller: IESG
+ Field Name: Expires
+ Description: specifies the date/time after which the data in this file is considered stale
+ Multiple Appearances: No
+ Published in: this document
+ Status: current
+ Change controller: IESG
+
Field Name: Encryption
Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication
Multiple Appearances: Yes
@@ -778,9 +798,9 @@ of DNS-stored encryption keys (#28 and #94)
- Addressing IETF feedback (#118)
- Case sensitivity clarification (#127)
- Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136)
-- Removed permission directive (#30)
-- Removed signature directive and switched to inline signatures (#93 and #128)
-- Adding canonical directive (#100)
+- Removed permission field (#30)
+- Removed signature field and switched to inline signatures (#93 and #128)
+- Adding canonical field (#100)
- Text and ABNF grammar improvements plus ABNF changes for comments (#123)
- Changed ".security.txt" to "security.txt" to be consistent
@@ -791,7 +811,7 @@ of DNS-stored encryption keys (#28 and #94)
- Expanded security considerations section and fixed typos (#30, #73, #103, #112)
## Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06
-- Fixed ABNF grammar for non-chainable directives (#150)
+- Fixed ABNF grammar for non-chainable fields (#150)
- Clarified ABNF grammar (#152)
- Clarified redirect logic (#143)
- Clarified comments (#158)
@@ -805,7 +825,11 @@ of DNS-stored encryption keys (#28 and #94)
- Adding guidance for designated experts
## Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08
-- TBD
+- Added language and example regarding URI encoding (#176)
+- Add "Expires" field (#181)
+- Changed language from "directive" to "field" (#182)
+- Addressing last call feedback (#179 and #180)
+- Clarifying order of fields (#174)
Full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
index 45f0e5a..adbdeff 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
Network Working Group E. Foudil
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational Y. Shafranovich
-Expires: May 22, 2020 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
- November 19, 2019
+Expires: July 23, 2020 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
+ January 20, 2020
A Method for Web Security Policies
@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ Abstract
researchers, they often lack the channels to report them properly.
As a result, security vulnerabilities may be left unreported. This
document defines a format ("security.txt") to help organizations
- describe the process for security researchers to follow in order to
- report security vulnerabilities.
+ describe their vulnerability disclosure practices to make it easier
+ for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.
Status of This Memo
@@ -36,11 +36,11 @@ Status of This Memo
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
- This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2020.
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2020.
Copyright Notice
- Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
@@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ Copyright Notice
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 1]
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 1]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
@@ -77,52 +77,52 @@ Table of Contents
3.5.2. Canonical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.3. Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.4. Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 3.5.5. Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 3.5.6. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 3.5.7. Preferred-Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.5.5. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.5.6. Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.5.7. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.5.8. Preferred-Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Example of an unsigned "security.txt" file . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Example of a signed "security.txt" file . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Location of the security.txt file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Web-based services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Filesystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 4.3. Internal hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 4.4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- 6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Incorrect or Stale Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports . . 13
- 6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+ 6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Multi-user Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.6. Protecting Data in Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
- 6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ 6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
- 7.1. Well-Known URIs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
- 7.2. Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . . 15
+ 7.1. Well-Known URIs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
+ 7.2. Registry for security.txt Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
- Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
- B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
+ Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
+ B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 2]
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 2]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
- B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
+ B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
- B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
+ B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.7. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
- B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
- Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
+ B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
@@ -130,8 +130,9 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable
to report security vulnerabilities to organizations because there is
- no course of action laid out and no way indicated to contact the
- owner of a particular resource.
+ no way indicated to contact the owner of a particular resource and no
+ information available about the vulnerability disclosure practices of
+ such owner.
As per section 4 of [RFC2142], there is an existing convention of
using the email address for communications
@@ -139,7 +140,7 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
single, email-based channel of communication for security
vulnerabilities per domain, and does not provide a way for domain
owners to publish information about their security disclosure
- policies.
+ practices.
There are also contact conventions prescribed for Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) in section 2 of [RFC3013], for Computer Security
@@ -148,31 +149,26 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
is also contact information provided by Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs) and domain registries for owners of IP addresses, autonomous
system numbers (ASNs) and domain names. However, none of these
- address the issue of how security researchers can locate disclosure
- policies and contact information for organizations in order to report
- security vulnerabilities.
+ address the issue of how security researchers can locate
+ vulnerability disclosure practices and contact information for
+ organizations in order to report security vulnerabilities.
- In this document, we define a richer, machine-parsable and extensible
- way for organizations to communicate information about their security
- disclosure policies, which is not limited to email and also allows
- for additional features such as encryption. This format is designed
- to help assist with the security disclosure process by making it
- easier for organizations to designate the preferred steps for
- researchers to take when trying to reach out to them with security
- vulnerabilities.
+ In this document, we define a richer and more extensible way for
+ organizations to communicate information about their security
+ disclosure practices and ways to contact them. Other details of
+ vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document.
+ Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as
+ [ISO.29147.2018] or [CERT.CVD].
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 3]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
- Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of
- this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other documents
- such as [ISO.29147.2018] or [CERT.CVD].
1.2. Terminology
@@ -193,55 +189,62 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
3. The Specification
This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location
- that provides information for security researchers to assist in
- disclosing security vulnerabilities.
-
- The file is named "security.txt", and this file SHOULD be placed
- under the /.well-known/ path ("/.well-known/security.txt") [RFC8615]
- of a domain name or IP address for web properties. For legacy
- compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the top level
- path (see Section 4.1).
-
- For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext
- Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC1945] as a resource of Internet Media
- Type "text/plain" with the default charset parameter set to "utf-8"
- per section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046], and it MUST be served with "https"
- (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). For file systems and version
- control repositories a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the
- root directory of a particular file system or source code project.
-
- This text file contains multiple directives with different values.
- The "directive" is the first part of a field all the way up to the
- colon ("Contact:") and follows the syntax defined for "field-name" in
- section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322]. Directives are case-insensitive (as per
- section 2.3 of [RFC5234]). The "value" comes after the directive
- ("https://example.com/security") and follows the syntax defined for
- "unstructured" in section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322].
-
+ that provides information about the vulnerability disclosure
+ practices of a particular organization. This is intended to help
+ security researchers when disclosing security vulnerabilities.
+
+ By convention, the file is named "security.txt".
+
+ When made available on HTTP servers, it MUST be placed under the
+ /.well-known/ path (as "/.well-known/security.txt") [RFC8615] of a
+ domain name or IP address. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt
+ file might be placed at the top level path (see Section 4.1). For
+ file systems a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root
+ directory of the file system.
+
+ On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via HTTP 1.0 or a higher
+ version and the "https" scheme (as per [RFC1945] and section 2.7.2 of
+ [RFC7230]). It MUST have a Content-Type of "text/plain" with the
+ default charset parameter set to "utf-8" (as per section 4.1.3 of
+ [RFC2046]).
+
+ This text file contains multiple fields with different values. A
+ field contains a "name" which is the first part of a field all the
+ way up to the colon ("Contact:") and follows the syntax defined for
+ "field-name" in section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322]. Fields are case-
+ insensitive (as per section 2.3 of [RFC5234]). The "value" comes
+ after the field name ("https://example.com/security") and follows the
+ syntax defined for "unstructured" in section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322].
+
+ A "field" MUST always consist of a name and a value ("Contact:
+ https://example.com/security"). A security.txt file can have an
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 4]
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 4]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
- A "field" MUST always consist of a directive and a value ("Contact:
- https://example.com/security"). A security.txt file can have an
unlimited number of fields. It is important to note that each field
MUST appear on its own line. Unless specified otherwise by the field
definition, multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single
- directive. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a
- particular field, any directive MAY appear multiple times.
+ field. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular
+ field, any field MAY appear multiple times.
+
+ Implementors should be aware that some of the fields may contain URIs
+ using percent-encoding (as per section 2.1 of [RFC3986]).
3.1. Scope of the File
- A "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the domain in the URI used
- to retrieve it, not to any of its subdomains or parent domains. A
- "security.txt" file that is found in a file system or version control
- repository MUST only apply to the folder or repository in which it is
- located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders, or
- repositories. However, it will apply to all subfolders.
+ For HTTP servers, a "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the domain
+ or IP address in the URI used to retrieve it, not to any of its
+ subdomains or parent domains.
+
+ A "security.txt" file that is found in a file system MUST only apply
+ to the folder in which it is located and that folder's subfolders.
+ The file does not apply to any of the folder's parent or sibling
+ folders.
Some examples appear below:
@@ -271,19 +274,13 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
# This is a comment.
- One or more comments MAY be used as descriptive text immediately
- before the field. Parsers SHOULD associate the comments with the
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 5]
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 5]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
- respective field. Only the line most immediately preceding a field
- SHOULD be associated with that field.
3.3. Line Separator
@@ -296,9 +293,9 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
It is RECOMMENDED that a security.txt file be digitally signed using
an OpenPGP cleartext signature as described in section 7 of
[RFC4880]. When digital signatures are used, it is also RECOMMENDED
- that implementors use the "Canonical" directive (as per
- Section 3.5.2), thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate
- the location of the file.
+ that implementors use the "Canonical" field (as per Section 3.5.2),
+ thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate the location of
+ the file.
When it comes to verifying the key used to generate the signature, it
is always the security researcher's responsibility to make sure the
@@ -308,15 +305,15 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
3.5.1. Acknowledgments
- This directive indicates a link to a page where security researchers
- are recognized for their reports. The page being referenced SHOULD
- list individuals or organizations that reported security
- vulnerabilities and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations
- SHOULD be careful to limit the vulnerability information being
- published in order to prevent future attacks.
+ This field indicates a link to a page where security researchers are
+ recognized for their reports. The page being referenced should list
+ individuals or organizations that reported security vulnerabilities
+ and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations should be careful
+ to limit the vulnerability information being published in order to
+ prevent future attacks.
- If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with
- "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
+ If this field indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://"
+ (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
Example:
@@ -333,41 +330,42 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 6]
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 6]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
3.5.2. Canonical
- This directive indicates the canonical URI where the security.txt
- file is located, which is usually something like
- "https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt". If this directive
+ This field indicates the canonical URIs where the security.txt file
+ is located, which is usually something like
+ "https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt". If this field
indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per
- section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). The purpose of this directive is to
- allow a digital signature to be applied to the location of the
+ section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). The purpose of this field is to allow a
+ digital signature to be applied to the locations of the
"security.txt" file.
- This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
-
- Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+ Canonical: https://www.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+ Canonical: https://someserver.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
3.5.3. Contact
- This directive indicates an address that researchers should use for
- reporting security vulnerabilities. The value MAY be an email
- address, a phone number and/or a web page with contact information.
- The "Contact:" directive MUST always be present in a security.txt
- file. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with
- "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). Security email
- addresses SHOULD use the conventions defined in section 4 of
- [RFC2142].
+ This field indicates an address that researchers should use for
+ reporting security vulnerabilities such as an email address, a phone
+ number and/or a web page with contact information. The "Contact"
+ field MUST always be present in a security.txt file. If this field
+ indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per
+ section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). Security email addresses should use the
+ conventions defined in section 4 of [RFC2142].
The value MUST follow the URI syntax described in [RFC3986]. This
- means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes MUST be used when
+ means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes must be used when
specifying email addresses and telephone numbers, as defined in
- [RFC6068] and [RFC3966]. When the value of this directive is an
- email address, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per
+ [RFC6068] and [RFC3966]. When the value of this field is an email
+ address, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per
Section 3.5.4).
The precedence SHOULD be in listed order. The first field is the
@@ -375,28 +373,30 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
is the preferred method of contact.
Contact: mailto:security@example.com
+ Contact: mailto:security%2Buri%2Bencoded@example.com
Contact: tel:+1-201-555-0123
Contact: https://example.com/security-contact.html
3.5.4. Encryption
- This directive indicates an encryption key that security researchers
- SHOULD use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT appear in this
+ This field indicates an encryption key that security researchers
+ should use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT appear in this
field - instead the value of this field MUST be a URI pointing to a
- location where the key can be retrieved. If this directive indicates
- a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2
- of [RFC7230]).
+ location where the key can be retrieved. If this field indicates a
+ web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of
+ [RFC7230]).
+
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 7]
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 7]
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the key, it is always
the security researcher's responsibility to make sure the key being
- specified is indeed one they trust. Researchers MUST NOT assume that
+ specified is indeed one they trust. Researchers must not assume that
this key is used to generate the digital signature referenced in
Section 3.4.
@@ -412,49 +412,59 @@ Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
-3.5.5. Hiring
+3.5.5. Expires
+
+ This field indicates the date/time after which the data contained in
+ the "security.txt" file is considered stale and should not be used
+ (as per Section 6.2). The value of this field follows the format
+ defined in section 3.3 of [RFC5322].
+
+ This field MUST NOT appear more than once.
+
+ Expires: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 18:37:07 -0800
- The "Hiring" directive is used for linking to the vendor's security-
- related job positions. If this directive indicates a web URL, then
- it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
+3.5.6. Hiring
+
+ The "Hiring" field is used for linking to the vendor's security-
+ related job positions. If this field indicates a web URL, then it
+ MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
-3.5.6. Policy
+3.5.7. Policy
- This directive indicates a link to where the security policy and/or
- disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers
- understand what an organization is looking for and how to report
- security vulnerabilities. If this directive indicates a web URL,
- then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of
- [RFC7230]).
+ This field indicates a link to where the vulnerability disclosure
+ policy is located. This can help security researchers understand the
+ organization's vulnerability reporting practices. If this field
+ indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per
+ section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).
Example:
- Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
+ Policy: https://example.com/disclosure-policy.html
-3.5.7. Preferred-Languages
- This directive can be used to indicate a set of natural languages
- that are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY
- list multiple values, separated by commas. If this directive is
- included then at least one value MUST be listed. The values within
- this set are language tags (as defined in [RFC5646]). If this
- directive is absent, security researchers MAY assume that English is
- the default language to be used (as per section 4.5 of [RFC2277]).
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 8]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 8]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+3.5.8. Preferred-Languages
+ This field can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that
+ are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY list
+ multiple values, separated by commas. If this field is included then
+ at least one value MUST be listed. The values within this set are
+ language tags (as defined in [RFC5646]). If this field is absent,
+ security researchers may assume that English is the language to be
+ used (as per section 4.5 of [RFC2277]).
The order in which they appear MUST NOT be interpreted as an
indication of priority - rather these MUST be interpreted as all
being of equal priority.
- This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.
+ This field MUST NOT appear more than once.
Example (English, Spanish and French):
@@ -476,6 +486,26 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
3.7. Example of a signed "security.txt" file
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 9]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
@@ -499,31 +529,23 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
[signature]
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 9]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
4. Location of the security.txt file
4.1. Web-based services
- Web-based services SHOULD place the security.txt file under the
- /.well-known/ path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
- as per [RFC8615]. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file
- might be placed at the top-level path or redirect (as per section 6.4
- of [RFC7231]) to the security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path.
+ Web-based services MUST place the security.txt file under the
+ "/.well-known/" path; e.g. https://example.com/.well-known/
+ security.txt as per [RFC8615]. For legacy compatibility, a
+ security.txt file might be placed at the top-level path or redirect
+ (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]) to the security.txt file under the
+ "/.well-known/" path. If a "security.txt" file is present in both
+ locations, the one in the "/.well-known/" path MUST be used.
- If retrieval of a "security.txt" file from the top-level path results
- in a redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]), the implementors
- MUST NOT follow that redirect if it leads to another domain or
- subdomain but SHOULD follow that redirect within the same domain name
- (but not different subdomain on the same domain).
-
- The guidance regarding redirects SHOULD NOT apply to the resource
- locations that appear within the file.
+ Retrieval of "security.txt" files and resources indicated within such
+ files may result in a redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]).
+ Researchers should perform additional triage (as per Section 6.1) to
+ make sure these redirects are not malicious or point to resources
+ controlled by an attacker.
4.2. Filesystems
@@ -532,37 +554,31 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Example file system:
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 10]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
/example-directory-1/
/example-directory-2/
/example-directory-3/
/example-file
/security.txt
-4.3. Internal hosts
-
- An internal host is "a host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by
- a firewall" (as per section 3 of [RFC6887]) and might not be
- accessible directly from the Internet. On such systems, a
- "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory.
-
-4.4. Extensibility
+4.3. Extensibility
Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be
extended over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the
Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via an IANA registry
- for directives as defined in Section 7.2. Any directives registered
- via that process MUST be considered optional. To encourage
- extensibility and interoperability, implementors MUST ignore any
- fields they do not explicitly support.
-
-
+ for fields as defined in Section 7.2. Any fields registered via that
+ process MUST be considered optional. To encourage extensibility and
+ interoperability, implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not
+ explicitly support.
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 10]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
- In general, implementors SHOULD "be conservative in what you do, be
+ In general, implementors should "be conservative in what you do, be
liberal in what you accept from others" (as per [RFC0793]).
5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar
@@ -574,76 +590,90 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
The following is an ABNF definition of the security.txt format, using
the conventions defined in [RFC5234].
- body = signed / unsigned
+body = signed / unsigned
+
+signed = sign-header unsigned sign-footer
- signed = sign-header unsigned sign-footer
+sign-header = < headers and line from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
- sign-header = < headers and line from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
+sign-footer = < OpenPGP signature from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
- sign-footer = < OpenPGP signature from section 7 of [RFC4880] >
+unsigned = *line (contact-field eol)
+ *line [expires-field eol]
+ *line [lang-field eol] *line
+ ; the order of fields within the file is not important
- unsigned = *line [can-field eol]
- *line (contact-field eol)
- *line [lang-field eol] *line
- ; the order of elements is not important
+line = (field / comment) eol
- line = (field / comment) eol
+eol = *WSP [CR] LF
- eol = *WSP [CR] LF
+field = ack-field /
+ can-field /
+ contact-field /
- field = ack-field /
- contact-field /
- encryption-field /
- hiring-field /
- policy-field /
- ext-field
- fs = ":"
- comment = "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF)
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 11]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
- ack-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri
- can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri
+ encryption-field /
+ hiring-field /
+ policy-field /
+ ext-field
- contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri
+fs = ":"
- lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
+comment = "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF)
+ack-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri
+can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri
+contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 11]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
+expires-field = "Expires" fs SP date-time
+encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri
- uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
+hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri
- encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri
+lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
- hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri
+policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri
- policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri
+date-time = < imported from section 3.3 of [RFC5322] >
- lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
+lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
- lang-values = lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
+lang-values = lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
- ext-field = field-name fs SP unstructured
+uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] >
- field-name = < imported from section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322] >
+ext-field = field-name fs SP unstructured
- unstructured = < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
+field-name = < imported from section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322] >
+
+unstructured = < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
"ext-field" refers to extension fields, which are discussed in
- Section 4.4
+ Section 4.3
6. Security Considerations
In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the
following considerations apply.
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 12]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects
An attacker that has compromised a website is able to compromise the
@@ -651,31 +681,23 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
This can result in security reports not being received by the
organization or sent to the attacker.
- To protect against this, organizations SHOULD digitally sign their
- "security.txt" files (as per Section 3.4), use the canonical
- directive to sign the location of the file (as per Section 3.5.2),
- and regularly monitor the file and the referenced resources to detect
+ To protect against this, organizations should digitally sign their
+ "security.txt" files (as per Section 3.4), use the "Canonical" field
+ to sign the locations of the file (as per Section 3.5.2), and
+ regularly monitor the file and the referenced resources to detect
tampering.
- Security researchers SHOULD check the "security.txt" file including
+ Security researchers should triage the "security.txt" file including
verifying the digital signature and checking any available historical
- records before using the information contained in the file. If
- "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised, it SHOULD NOT be
+ records before using the information contained in the file. If the
+ "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised, it should not be
used.
- To avoid redirect attacks, redirects for these files MUST NOT be
- followed when the file is placed in the top level path and they lead
- to a different domain (as per Section 4.1). This restriction is
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 12]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
- because the top level path is potentially more likely to be
- compromised as opposed to the ".well-known" path.
+ When retrieving the file and any resources referenced in the file,
+ researchers should record any redirects since they can lead to a
+ different domain or IP address controlled by an attacker. Further
+ inspections of such redirects is recommended before using the
+ information.
6.2. Incorrect or Stale Information
@@ -684,9 +706,11 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
not being received by the organization or sent to incorrect contacts,
thus exposing possible security issues to third parties. Not having
a security.txt file may be preferable to having stale information in
- this file.
+ this file. Organizations are also encouraged to use the "Expires"
+ field (see Section 3.5.5) to indicate to researchers when the data in
+ the file is no longer valid.
- Organizations SHOULD ensure that information in this file and any
+ Organizations should ensure that information in this file and any
referenced resources such as web pages, email addresses and telephone
numbers are kept current, are accessible, controlled by the
organization, and are kept secure.
@@ -696,9 +720,19 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files
that are extraordinarily large or otherwise malformed in an attempt
to discover or exploit weaknesses in parsing code. Implementors
- SHOULD make sure that any such code is robust against large and
- malformed files. The ABNF grammar (as defined in Section 5) SHOULD
- be used as a way to verify these files.
+ should make sure that any such code is robust against large or
+ malformed files and fields and may choose not to parse files larger
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 13]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
+ than 32 KBs, having fields longer than 2,048 characters or containing
+ more than 1,000 lines. The ABNF grammar (as defined in Section 5)
+ can also be used as a way to verify these files.
The same concerns apply to any other resources referenced within
security.txt files, as well as any security reports received as a
@@ -717,56 +751,64 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
might result in pushback against researchers reporting security
issues to that organization.
- Therefore, implementors MUST NOT assume that presence or absence of a
- "security.txt" file grants or denies permission for security testing.
- Any such permission MAY be defined in a security or disclosure policy
- (as per Section 3.5.6) or a new directive (as per Section 4.4).
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 13]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
+ Therefore, implementors shouldn't assume that presence or absence of
+ a "security.txt" file grants or denies permission for security
+ testing. Any such permission may be indicated in the company's
+ vulnerability disclosure policy (as per Section 3.5.7) or a new field
+ (as per Section 4.3).
6.5. Multi-user Environments
In multi-user / multi-tenant environments, it may possible for a user
to take over the location of the "security.txt" file. Organizations
- SHOULD reserve the "security.txt" namespace at the root to ensure no
+ should reserve the "security.txt" namespace at the root to ensure no
third-party can create a page with the "security.txt" AND "/.well-
known/security.txt" names.
6.6. Protecting Data in Transit
To protect a "security.txt" file from being tampered with in transit,
- implementors MUST use HTTPS (as per [RFC2818]) when serving the file
- itself and for retrieval of any web URLs referenced in it (except
- when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the TLS
- handshake, implementors MUST validate the provided X.509 certificate
- in accordance with [RFC6125] and the following considerations:
+ implementors should use HTTPS (as per [RFC2818]) when serving the
+ file itself and for retrieval of any web URLs referenced in it
+ (except when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the
+ TLS handshake, implementors should validate the provided X.509
+ certificate in accordance with [RFC6125] and the following
+ considerations:
o Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID identifiers.
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 14]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
o DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard
character '*' as the complete left-most label within the
identifier.
- The certificate MAY be checked for revocation via the Online
+ The certificate may also be checked for revocation via the Online
Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960], certificate revocation
lists (CRLs), or similar mechanisms.
- As an additional layer of protection, it is also RECOMMENDED that
+ In cases where the "security.txt" file cannot be served via HTTPS or
+ is being served with an invalid certificate, additional human triage
+ is recommended since the contents may have been modified while in
+ transit.
+
+ As an additional layer of protection, it is also recommended that
organizations digitally sign their "security.txt" file with OpenPGP
(as per Section 3.4). Also, to protect security reports from being
- tampered with or observed while in transit, organizations SHOULD
+ tampered with or observed while in transit, organizations should
specify encryption keys (as per Section 3.5.4) unless HTTPS is being
used.
However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope
- for this specification. Implementors MUST establish other secure
- means to verify them.
+ for this specification. Security researchers need to establish other
+ secure means to verify them.
6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports
@@ -774,30 +816,31 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
reports would become easier once a "security.txt" file is published
by an organization. In addition, there is an increased likelihood of
reports being sent in an automated fashion and/or as result of
- automated scans without human triage.
-
+ automated scans without human triage. Attackers can also use this
+ file as a way to spam unrelated third parties by listing their
+ resources and/or contact information.
+ Organizations need to weigh the advantages of publishing this file
+ versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to
+ triage security reports.
+ Security researchers should review all information within the
+ "security.txt" file before submitting reports in an automated fashion
+ or as resulting from automated scans.
+7. IANA Considerations
+ example.com is used in this document following the uses indicated in
+ [RFC2606].
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 14]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
- Organizations SHOULD weigh the advantages of publishing this file
- versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to
- triage security reports.
- Security researchers SHOULD consult the organization's policy, if
- available, before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as
- resulting from automated scans.
-7. IANA Considerations
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 15]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
- example.com is used in this document following the uses indicated in
- [RFC2606].
192.0.2.0 and 2001:db8:8:4::2 are used in this document following the
uses indicated in [RFC6890].
@@ -815,11 +858,11 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Status: permanent
-7.2. Registry for security.txt Header Fields
+7.2. Registry for security.txt Fields
- IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Header Fields" registry
- in accordance with [RFC8126]. This registry will contain header
- fields for use in security.txt files, defined by this specification.
+ IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Fields" registry in
+ accordance with [RFC8126]. This registry will contain fields for use
+ in security.txt files, defined by this specification.
New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the
"Expert Review" guidelines as described in sections 4.5 and 5 of
@@ -828,20 +871,15 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
published.
Designated Experts are expected to check whether a proposed
- registration or update makes sense in the context of this
- specification and provides value to the wider Internet community.
+ registration or update makes sense in the context of industry
+ accepted vulnerability disclosure processes such as [ISO.29147.2018]
+ and [CERT.CVD], and provides value to organizations and researchers
+ using this format.
New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:
1. Name of the field being registered or updated
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 15]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
2. Short description of the field
3. Whether the field can appear more than once
@@ -853,6 +891,13 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
* current: The field is in current use
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 16]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
* deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is
discouraged
@@ -865,39 +910,6 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
The initial registry contains these values:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 16]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
Field Name: Acknowledgments
Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized
Multiple Appearances: Yes
@@ -919,6 +931,13 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Status: current
Change controller: IESG
+ Field Name: Expires
+ Description: specifies the date/time after which the data in this file is considered stale
+ Multiple Appearances: No
+ Published in: this document
+ Status: current
+ Change controller: IESG
+
Field Name: Encryption
Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication
Multiple Appearances: Yes
@@ -927,6 +946,14 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Change controller: IESG
Field Name: Hiring
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 17]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
@@ -947,13 +974,6 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Status: current
Change controller: IESG
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 17]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
8. Contributors
The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the
@@ -983,6 +1003,13 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
.
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 18]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and
Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997,
.
@@ -1003,13 +1030,6 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004,
.
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 18]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
@@ -1037,6 +1057,15 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, .
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 19]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
[RFC6068] Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
.
@@ -1048,24 +1077,12 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, .
- [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
- P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
- DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
- .
-
[RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
.
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 19]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
@@ -1096,6 +1113,15 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
"ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology -- Security
techniques -- Vulnerability disclosure", 2018.
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 20]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
.
@@ -1113,15 +1139,6 @@ Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999,
.
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 20]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
[RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider
Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000,
@@ -1150,6 +1167,17 @@ Appendix A. Note to Readers
Development of this draft takes place on Github at
https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 21]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
Appendix B. Document History
*Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to
@@ -1171,13 +1199,6 @@ B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00
o Scope expanded to include internal hosts, domains, IP addresses
and file systems
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 21]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
o Support for digital signatures added (#19)
The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker:
@@ -1203,6 +1224,16 @@ B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01
The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-02
+
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 22]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02
o Use "mailto" and "tel" (#62)
@@ -1224,16 +1255,6 @@ B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02
o Added "Hiring" field
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 22]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03
o Added "Hiring" field to the registry section
@@ -1262,12 +1283,19 @@ B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
o Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136)
- o Removed permission directive (#30)
- o Removed signature directive and switched to inline signatures (#93
- and #128)
- o Adding canonical directive (#100)
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 23]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
+ o Removed permission field (#30)
+
+ o Removed signature field and switched to inline signatures (#93 and
+ #128)
+
+ o Adding canonical field (#100)
o Text and ABNF grammar improvements plus ABNF changes for comments
(#123)
@@ -1282,20 +1310,12 @@ B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05
o Added language handling redirects (#143)
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 23]
-
-Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019
-
-
o Expanded security considerations section and fixed typos (#30,
#73, #103, #112)
B.7. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06
- o Fixed ABNF grammar for non-chainable directives (#150)
+ o Fixed ABNF grammar for non-chainable fields (#150)
o Clarified ABNF grammar (#152)
@@ -1317,9 +1337,26 @@ B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07
o Adding guidance for designated experts
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 24]
+
+Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies January 2020
+
+
B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08
- o TBD
+ o Added language and example regarding URI encoding (#176)
+
+ o Add "Expires" field (#181)
+
+ o Changed language from "directive" to "field" (#182)
+
+ o Addressing last call feedback (#179 and #180)
+
+ o Clarifying order of fields (#174)
Full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt
@@ -1341,4 +1378,23 @@ Authors' Addresses
-Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 24]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 23, 2020 [Page 25]