From 1435fbb68d687a0869e93547e2c74fb5a9e3abae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nightwatchcyber Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 23:40:51 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/7] last call changes --- draft-foudil-securitytxt.html | 1284 ------------------------------- draft-foudil-securitytxt.md | 276 ++++--- draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt | 1344 --------------------------------- 3 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 2753 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html delete mode 100644 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html deleted file mode 100644 index 4de3249..0000000 --- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1284 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - - A Method for Web Security Policies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Network Working GroupE. Foudil
Internet-Draft
Intended status: InformationalY. Shafranovich
Expires: May 22, 2020Nightwatch Cybersecurity
November 19, 2019
- -

A Method for Web Security Policies
- draft-foudil-securitytxt-09

- -

Abstract

-

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.

-

Status of This Memo

-

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."

-

This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2020.

-

Copyright Notice

-

Copyright (c) 2019 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.

- - -
-

Table of Contents

- - -

-1. Introduction -

-

-1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope -

-

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].

-

-1.2. Terminology -

-

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

-

-2. Note to Readers -

-

- - -

Development of this draft takes place on Github at: https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt

-

-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].

-

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.

-

-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.

-

Some examples appear below:

-
-# The following only applies to example.com.
-https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
-
-# This only applies to subdomain.example.com.
-https://subdomain.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
-
-# This security.txt file applies to IPv4 address of 192.0.2.0.
-https://192.0.2.0/.well-known/security.txt
-
-# This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2.
-https://[2001:db8:8:4::2]/.well-known/security.txt
-
-# This file applies to the /example/folder1 directory and subfolders.
-/example/folder1/security.txt
-
-

-3.2. Comments -

-

Any line beginning with the “#” (%x30) symbol MUST be interpreted as a comment. The content of the comment may contain any ASCII or Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab (%x09) and space (%x20) characters.

-

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.

-

-3.3. Line Separator -

-

Every line MUST end either with a carriage return and line feed characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / %x0A).

-

-3.4. Digital signature -

-

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.

-

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.

-

-3.5. Field Definitions -

-

-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.

-

If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with “https://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

-

Example:

-
-Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
-
-

Example security acknowledgments page:

-
-We would like to thank the following researchers:
-
-(2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting
-(2017-01-02) Alice Quinn  - SQL injection
-(2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting
-(2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue
-
-

-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 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.

-
-Canonical: https://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].

-

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).

-

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.

-
-Contact: mailto:security@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 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.

-

Example of an OpenPGP key available from a web server:

-
-Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
-
-

Example of an OpenPGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS record:

-
-Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
-
-

Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint:

-
-Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
-
-

-3.5.5. 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://” (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

-
-Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
-
-

-3.5.6. 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]).

-

Example:

-
-Policy: https://example.com/security-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]).

-

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):

-
-Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr
-
-

-3.6. Example of an unsigned “security.txt” file -

-
-# Our security address
-Contact: mailto:security@example.com
-
-# Our OpenPGP key
-Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
-
-# Our security policy
-Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
-
-# Our security acknowledgments page
-Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
-
-

-3.7. Example of a signed “security.txt” file -

-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-Hash: SHA256
-
-# Canonical URL
-Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
-
-# Our security address
-Contact: mailto:security@example.com
-
-# Our OpenPGP key
-Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
-
-# Our security policy
-Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
-
-# Our security acknowledgments page
-Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
------BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-Version: GnuPG v2.2
-
-[signature]
------END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
-

-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.

-

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.

-

-4.2. Filesystems -

-

File systems SHOULD place the “security.txt” file under the root directory; e.g., “/security.txt”, “C:\security.txt”.

-

Example file system:

-
-/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 -

-

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]).

-

-5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar -

-

The expected file format of the security.txt file is plain text (MIME type “text/plain”) as defined in section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046] and is encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-Unicode form [RFC5198].

-

The following is an ABNF definition of the security.txt format, using the conventions defined in [RFC5234].

-
-body             =  signed / unsigned
-
-signed           =  sign-header unsigned sign-footer
-
-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)
-                    *line [lang-field eol] *line
-                    ; the order of elements is not important
-
-line             =  (field / comment) eol
-
-eol              =  *WSP [CR] LF
-
-field            =  ack-field /
-                    contact-field /
-                    encryption-field /                         
-                    hiring-field /
-                    policy-field /
-                    ext-field
-
-fs               =  ":"
-
-comment          =  "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF)
-
-ack-field        =  "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri
-
-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] >
-
-encryption-field =  "Encryption" fs SP uri
-
-hiring-field     =  "Hiring" fs SP uri
-
-policy-field     =  "Policy" fs SP uri
-
-lang-field       =  "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values
-
-lang-values      =  lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
-
-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

-

-6. Security Considerations -

-

In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the following considerations apply.

-

-6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects -

-

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.

-

-6.2. Incorrect or Stale 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.

-

-6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports -

-

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.

-

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.

-

-6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing -

-

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).

-

-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 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:

-

- - -

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.

-

-6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports -

-

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.

-

-7. IANA Considerations -

-

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].

-

-7.1. Well-Known URIs registry -

-

The “Well-Known URIs” registry should be updated with the following additional values (using the template from [RFC8615]):

-

URI suffix: security.txt

-

Change controller: IETF

-

Specification document(s): this document

-

Status: permanent

-

-7.2. Registry for security.txt Header 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.

-

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.

-

New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:

-

- -
    -
  1. Name of the field being registered or updated
    2. -
  2. Short description of the field
    3. -
  3. Whether the field can appear more than once
    4. -
  4. The document in which the specification of the field is published (if available)
    5. -
  5. New or updated status, which MUST be one of:
      -
    • current: The field is in current use
      • -
    • deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is discouraged
      • -
    • historic: The field is no longer in current use
      • -
    -
    6. -
  6. Change controller
    7. -
-

An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating that a registered field is historical or deprecated if appropriate.

-

The initial registry contains these values:

-
-   Field Name: Acknowledgments
-   Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized
-   Multiple Appearances: Yes
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-   Field Name: Canonical
-   Description: canonical URL for this file
-   Multiple Appearances: No
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-   Field Name: Contact
-   Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities
-   Multiple Appearances: Yes
-   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
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-   Field Name: Hiring
-   Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions
-   Multiple Appearances: Yes
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-   Field Name: Policy
-   Description: link to security policy page
-   Multiple Appearances: Yes
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-   Field Name: Preferred-Languages
-   Description: list of preferred languages for security reports
-   Multiple Appearances: No
-   Published in: this document
-   Status: current
-   Change controller: IESG
-
-

-8. Contributors -

-

The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the development of this document by Tom Hudson, Jobert Abma, Gerben Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Max Smith, Eduardo Vela and Krzysztof Kotowicz.

-

The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by multiple members of IETF’s SAAG and SECDISPATCH lists.

-

-9. References

-

-9.1. Normative References

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[RFC1945] -Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996.
[RFC2046] -Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996.
[RFC2119] -Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2142] -Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997.
[RFC2277] -Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, January 1998.
[RFC2818] -Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000.
[RFC3629] -Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003.
[RFC3966] -Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004.
[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.
[RFC4880] -Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007.
[RFC5198] -Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008.
[RFC5234] -Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008.
[RFC5322] -Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008.
[RFC5646] -Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009.
[RFC6068] -Duerst, M., Masinter, L. and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto' URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010.
[RFC6125] -Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 2011.
[RFC6887] -Wing, D., 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.
[RFC7230] -Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014.
[RFC7231] -Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014.
[RFC8174] -Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.
[RFC8615] -Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019.
-

-9.2. Informative References

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[CERT.CVD] -Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022)", 2017.
[ISO.29147.2018] -International Organization for Standardization (ISO), "ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology — Security techniques — Vulnerability disclosure", 2018.
[RFC0793] -Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981.
[RFC2196] -Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997.
[RFC2350] -Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998.
[RFC2606] -Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999.
[RFC3013] -Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000.
[RFC6890] -Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R. and B. Haberman, "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013.
[RFC7485] -Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S. and A. Servin, "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects", RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015.
[RFC8126] -Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017.
-

-Appendix A. Note to Readers -

-

- - -

Development of this draft takes place on Github at https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt

-

-Appendix B. Document History -

-

- - -

-B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 -

-

- - -

The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-01

-

-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

-

-B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 -

-

- - -

-B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 -

-

- - -

-B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 -

-

- - -

-B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 -

-

- - -

-B.7. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06 -

-

- - -

-B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 -

-

- - -

-B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 -

-

- - -

Full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt

-

Authors' Addresses

-
-
- - Edwin Foudil - - - - - - - - - - - - - EMail: contact@edoverflow.com - -
-
-
- - Yakov Shafranovich - - - Nightwatch Cybersecurity - - - - - - - - - - EMail: yakov+ietf@nightwatchcybersecurity.com - -
-
- - - - diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md index e361b6f..7c50ea1 100644 --- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md +++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ --- -title: A Method for Web Security Policies +title: A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices docname: draft-foudil-securitytxt-09 ipr: trust200902 cat: info @@ -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 +in order 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) @@ -62,17 +63,18 @@ 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 extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure -policies, which is not limited to email and also allows for additional features +practices and ways to contact them, 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. +when trying to reach out to them with security vulnerabilities as well as provide +additional information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to security researchers. Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as @@ -96,35 +98,37 @@ 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 for security researchers about the vulnerability disclosure +practices of a particular organization in order to assist them in disclosing security vulnerabilities. -The file is named "security.txt", and this file SHOULD be placed under the +The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST 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}}). -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. +For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 {{!RFC1945}} or higher version, 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 a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system. -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, +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 or version control repository MUST only apply to the folder +in a file system 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. @@ -159,11 +163,6 @@ 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 +173,7 @@ 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 +184,14 @@ 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 +213,32 @@ 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 +247,23 @@ 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 +284,22 @@ 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. +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 +308,32 @@ 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 +388,14 @@ 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 +411,16 @@ 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 +440,17 @@ 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 +467,24 @@ 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] > @@ -499,21 +506,19 @@ 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 location 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. +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 @@ -521,9 +526,11 @@ 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 {{expired}}) 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 +539,11 @@ 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 +559,24 @@ 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 indicates 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 +584,21 @@ 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. Researches need to establish other secure means to verify them. ## Spam and Spurious Reports @@ -594,15 +607,16 @@ 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 consult the organization's vulnerability disclosure policy, if available, +and review the contact information and/or resources referenced within the "security.txt" +file before submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from automated scans. # IANA Considerations @@ -637,8 +651,9 @@ 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 +693,13 @@ 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 +800,9 @@ 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 +813,7 @@ 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 +827,11 @@ 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 (#175, #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 deleted file mode 100644 index 45f0e5a..0000000 --- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1344 +0,0 @@ - - - - -Network Working Group E. Foudil -Internet-Draft -Intended status: Informational Y. Shafranovich -Expires: May 22, 2020 Nightwatch Cybersecurity - November 19, 2019 - - - A Method for Web Security Policies - draft-foudil-securitytxt-09 - -Abstract - - 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. - -Status of This Memo - - 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." - - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2020. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (c) 2019 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 - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as - described in the Simplified BSD License. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. The Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1. Scope of the File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.3. Line Separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.4. Digital signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5. Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5.1. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 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 - 3.6. 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 - 5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6.2. Incorrect or Stale Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports . . 13 - 6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 6.5. Multi-user Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6.6. Protecting Data in Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.1. Well-Known URIs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2. Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . . 15 - 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 - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 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.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 - -1. Introduction - -1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope - - 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 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. - - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - 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 - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and - "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP - 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all - capitals, as shown here. - -2. Note to Readers - - *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to - publication. - - Development of this draft takes place on Github at: - https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt - -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]. - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - 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. - -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. - - Some examples appear below: - - # The following only applies to example.com. - https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt - - # This only applies to subdomain.example.com. - https://subdomain.example.com/.well-known/security.txt - - # This security.txt file applies to IPv4 address of 192.0.2.0. - https://192.0.2.0/.well-known/security.txt - - # This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2. - https://[2001:db8:8:4::2]/.well-known/security.txt - - # This file applies to the /example/folder1 directory and subfolders. - /example/folder1/security.txt - -3.2. Comments - - Any line beginning with the "#" (%x30) symbol MUST be interpreted as - a comment. The content of the comment may contain any ASCII or - Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab - (%x09) and space (%x20) characters. - - 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 - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - respective field. Only the line most immediately preceding a field - SHOULD be associated with that field. - -3.3. Line Separator - - Every line MUST end either with a carriage return and line feed - characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / - %x0A). - -3.4. Digital signature - - 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. - - 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. - -3.5. Field Definitions - -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. - - If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST begin with - "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). - - Example: - - Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html - - Example security acknowledgments page: - - We would like to thank the following researchers: - - (2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting - (2017-01-02) Alice Quinn - SQL injection - (2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting - (2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - -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 - 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. - - Canonical: https://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]. - - 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). - - 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. - - Contact: mailto:security@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 - 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]). - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - 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: - - Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt - - Example of an OpenPGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS record: - -Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY - - Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint: - - Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f - -3.5.5. 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://" (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). - - Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html - -3.5.6. 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]). - - Example: - - Policy: https://example.com/security-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 May 22, 2020 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - 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): - - Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr - -3.6. Example of an unsigned "security.txt" file - - # Our security address - Contact: mailto:security@example.com - - # Our OpenPGP key - Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt - - # Our security policy - Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html - - # Our security acknowledgments page - Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html - -3.7. Example of a signed "security.txt" file - - ----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - Hash: SHA256 - - # Canonical URL - Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt - - # Our security address - Contact: mailto:security@example.com - - # Our OpenPGP key - Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt - - # Our security policy - Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html - - # Our security acknowledgments page - Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- - Version: GnuPG v2.2 - - [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. - - 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. - -4.2. Filesystems - - File systems SHOULD place the "security.txt" file under the root - directory; e.g., "/security.txt", "C:\security.txt". - - Example file system: - - /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 - - 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. - - - -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 - liberal in what you accept from others" (as per [RFC0793]). - -5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar - - The expected file format of the security.txt file is plain text (MIME - type "text/plain") as defined in section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046] and is - encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-Unicode form [RFC5198]. - - The following is an ABNF definition of the security.txt format, using - the conventions defined in [RFC5234]. - - body = signed / unsigned - - signed = sign-header unsigned sign-footer - - 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) - *line [lang-field eol] *line - ; the order of elements is not important - - line = (field / comment) eol - - eol = *WSP [CR] LF - - field = ack-field / - contact-field / - encryption-field / - hiring-field / - policy-field / - ext-field - - fs = ":" - - comment = "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF) - - ack-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri - - can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri - - contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri - - lang-tag = < Language-Tag from section 2.1 of [RFC5646] > - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - - uri = < URI as per [RFC3986] > - - encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri - - hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri - - policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri - - lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values - - lang-values = lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag) - - 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 - -6. Security Considerations - - In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the - following considerations apply. - -6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects - - 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 - - - -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. - -6.2. Incorrect or Stale 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. - -6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports - - 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. - - 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. - -6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing - - 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). - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies November 2019 - - -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 - 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: - - o Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID identifiers. - - 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 - 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. - -6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports - - 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. - - - - - - -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 - - 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]. - -7.1. Well-Known URIs registry - - The "Well-Known URIs" registry should be updated with the following - additional values (using the template from [RFC8615]): - - URI suffix: security.txt - - Change controller: IETF - - Specification document(s): this document - - Status: permanent - -7.2. Registry for security.txt Header 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. - - 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. - - 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 - - 4. The document in which the specification of the field is published - (if available) - - 5. New or updated status, which MUST be one of: - - * current: The field is in current use - - * deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is - discouraged - - * historic: The field is no longer in current use - - 6. Change controller - - An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating - that a registered field is historical or deprecated if appropriate. - - 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 - Published in: this document - Status: current - Change controller: IESG - - Field Name: Canonical - Description: canonical URL for this file - Multiple Appearances: No - Published in: this document - Status: current - Change controller: IESG - - Field Name: Contact - Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities - Multiple Appearances: Yes - 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 - Published in: this document - Status: current - Change controller: IESG - - Field Name: Hiring - Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions - Multiple Appearances: Yes - Published in: this document - Status: current - Change controller: IESG - - Field Name: Policy - Description: link to security policy page - Multiple Appearances: Yes - Published in: this document - Status: current - Change controller: IESG - - Field Name: Preferred-Languages - Description: list of preferred languages for security reports - Multiple Appearances: No - Published in: this document - 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 - development of this document by Tom Hudson, Jobert Abma, Gerben - Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Max Smith, - Eduardo Vela and Krzysztof Kotowicz. - - The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by - multiple members of IETF's SAAG and SECDISPATCH lists. - -9. References - -9.1. Normative References - - [RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext - Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, - DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996, - . - - [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail - Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996, - . - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . - - [RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and - Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997, - . - - [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and - Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, - January 1998, . - - [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, - . - - [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO - 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November - 2003, . - - [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", - 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, - . - - [RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R. - Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007, - . - - [RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network - Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008, - . - - [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax - Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, - . - - [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, - . - - [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying - Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, - September 2009, . - - [RFC6068] Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto' - URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010, - . - - [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and - Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity - within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 - (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer - 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, - . - - [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer - Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, - . - - [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC - 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, - May 2017, . - - [RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers - (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019, - . - -9.2. Informative References - - [CERT.CVD] - Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon - University, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability - Disclosure (CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022)", 2017. - - [ISO.29147.2018] - International Organization for Standardization (ISO), - "ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology -- Security - techniques -- Vulnerability disclosure", 2018. - - [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, - RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, - . - - [RFC2196] Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997, - . - - [RFC2350] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer - Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998, - . - - [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS - 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, - . - - [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, - "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, - RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, - . - - [RFC7485] Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin, - "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects", - RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015, - . - - [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for - Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, - RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, - . - -Appendix A. Note to Readers - - *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to - publication. - - Development of this draft takes place on Github at - https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt - -Appendix B. Document History - - *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to - publication. - -B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 - - o Moved to use IETF's markdown tools for draft updates - - o Added table of contents and a fuller list of references - - o Moved file to .well-known URI and added IANA registration (#3) - - o Added extensibility with an IANA registry for fields (#34) - - o Added text explaining relationship to RFC 2142 / security@ email - address (#25) - - 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: - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 - -B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 - - o Added appendix with pointer to Github and document history - - o Added external signature file to the well known URI registry (#59) - - o Added policy field (#53) - - o Added diagram explaining the location of the file on public vs. - internal systems - - o Added recommendation that external signature files should use - HTTPS (#55) - - o Added recommendation that organizations should monitor their - security.txt files (#14) - - The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 - -B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 - - o Use "mailto" and "tel" (#62) - - o Fix typo in the "Example" section (#64) - - o Clarified that the root directory is a fallback option (#72) - - o Defined content-type for the response (#68) - - o Clarify the scope of the security.txt file (#69) - - o Cleaning up text based on the NITS tools suggestions (#82) - - o Added clarification for newline values - - o Clarified the encryption field language, added examples of DNS- - stored encryption keys (#28 and #94) - - 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 - - o Added an encryption example using a PGP fingerprint (#107) - - o Added reference to the mailing list (#111) - - o Added a section referencing related work (#113) - - o Fixes for idnits (#82) - - o Changing some references to informative instead of normative - - o Adding "Permission" field (#30) - - o Fixing remaining ABNF issues (#83) - - o Additional editorial changes and edits - -B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 - - o Addressing IETF feedback (#118) - - o Case sensitivity clarification (#127) - - 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) - - o Text and ABNF grammar improvements plus ABNF changes for comments - (#123) - - o Changed ".security.txt" to "security.txt" to be consistent - -B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 - - o Changing HTTPS to MUST (#55) - - o Adding language recommending encryption for email reports (#134) - - 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 Clarified ABNF grammar (#152) - - o Clarified redirect logic (#143) - - o Clarified comments (#158) - - o Updated references and template for well-known URI to RFC 8615 - - o Fixed nits from the IETF validator - -B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 - - o Addressing AD feedback (#165) - - o Fix for ABNF grammar in lang-values (#164) - - o Fixing idnits warnings - - o Adding guidance for designated experts - -B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 - - o TBD - - Full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt - -Authors' Addresses - - Edwin Foudil - - Email: contact@edoverflow.com - - - Yakov Shafranovich - Nightwatch Cybersecurity - - Email: yakov+ietf@nightwatchcybersecurity.com - - - - - - -Foudil & Shafranovich Expires May 22, 2020 [Page 24] From 73b740188e74a7a548ad70bff702a8eadea7387e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nightwatchcyber Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 23:56:56 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/7] last call changes --- draft-foudil-securitytxt.html | 1302 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ draft-foudil-securitytxt.md | 4 +- draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt | 1400 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 2704 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html create mode 100644 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f9e12e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html @@ -0,0 +1,1302 @@ + + + + + + + A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Network Working GroupE. Foudil
Internet-Draft
Intended status: InformationalY. Shafranovich
Expires: July 2, 2020Nightwatch Cybersecurity
December 30, 2019
+ +

A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices
+ draft-foudil-securitytxt-09

+ +

Abstract

+

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 in order to make it easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.

+

Status of This Memo

+

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."

+

This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2020.

+

Copyright Notice

+

Copyright (c) 2019 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.

+ + +
+

Table of Contents

+ + +

+1. Introduction +

+

+1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope +

+

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 extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure practices and ways to contact them, 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 as well as provide additional information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to security researchers.

+

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 +

+

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

+

+2. Note to Readers +

+

+ +
  • +Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.
+

Development of this draft takes place on Github at: https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt

+

+3. The Specification +

+

This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location that provides information for security researchers about the vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization in order to assist them in disclosing security vulnerabilities.

+

The file is named “security.txt”, and this file MUST 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) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.

+

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]).

+

+3.1. Scope of the File +

+

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 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:

+
+# The following only applies to example.com.
+https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+
+# This only applies to subdomain.example.com.
+https://subdomain.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+
+# This security.txt file applies to IPv4 address of 192.0.2.0.
+https://192.0.2.0/.well-known/security.txt
+
+# This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2.
+https://[2001:db8:8:4::2]/.well-known/security.txt
+
+# This file applies to the /example/folder1 directory and subfolders.
+/example/folder1/security.txt
+
+

+3.2. Comments +

+

Any line beginning with the “#” (%x30) symbol MUST be interpreted as a comment. The content of the comment may contain any ASCII or Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab (%x09) and space (%x20) characters.

+

Example:

+
+# This is a comment.
+
+

+3.3. Line Separator +

+

Every line MUST end either with a carriage return and line feed characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / %x0A).

+

+3.4. Digital signature +

+

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.

+

+3.5. Field Definitions +

+

+3.5.1. Acknowledgments +

+

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]).

+

Example:

+
+Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
+
+

Example security acknowledgments page:

+
+We would like to thank the following researchers:
+
+(2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting
+(2017-01-02) Alice Quinn  - SQL injection
+(2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting
+(2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue
+
+

+3.5.2. Canonical +

+

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.

+
+Canonical: https://www.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+Canonical: https://someserver.example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+
+

+3.5.3. Contact +

+

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.

+
+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 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:

+
+Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
+
+

Example of an OpenPGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS record:

+
+Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
+
+

Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint:

+
+Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
+
+

+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. 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
+
+

+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
+
+

+3.5.7. Policy +

+

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/disclosure-policy.html
+
+

+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 field MUST NOT appear more than once.

+

Example (English, Spanish and French):

+
+Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr
+
+

+3.6. Example of an unsigned “security.txt” file +

+
+# Our security address
+Contact: mailto:security@example.com
+
+# Our OpenPGP key
+Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
+
+# Our security policy
+Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
+
+# Our security acknowledgments page
+Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
+
+

+3.7. Example of a signed “security.txt” file +

+
+----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
+Hash: SHA256
+
+# Canonical URL
+Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
+
+# Our security address
+Contact: mailto:security@example.com
+
+# Our OpenPGP key
+Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
+
+# Our security policy
+Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
+
+# Our security acknowledgments page
+Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2.2
+
+[signature]
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+

+4. Location of the security.txt file +

+

+4.1. Web-based services +

+

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.

+

+4.2. Filesystems +

+

File systems SHOULD place the “security.txt” file under the root directory; e.g., “/security.txt”, “C:\security.txt”.

+

Example file system:

+
+/example-directory-1/
+/example-directory-2/
+/example-directory-3/
+/example-file
+/security.txt
+
+

+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 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]).

+

+5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar +

+

The expected file format of the security.txt file is plain text (MIME type “text/plain”) as defined in section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046] and is encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-Unicode form [RFC5198].

+

The following is an ABNF definition of the security.txt format, using the conventions defined in [RFC5234].

+
+body             =  signed / unsigned
+
+signed           =  sign-header unsigned sign-footer
+
+sign-header      =  < headers and line 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
+
+line             =  (field / comment) eol
+
+eol              =  *WSP [CR] LF
+
+field            =  ack-field /
+                    can-field /
+                    contact-field /
+                    encryption-field /                         
+                    hiring-field /
+                    policy-field /
+                    ext-field
+
+fs               =  ":"
+
+comment          =  "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF)
+
+ack-field        =  "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri
+
+can-field        =  "Canonical" fs SP uri
+
+contact-field    =  "Contact" fs SP uri
+
+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
+
+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 4.3

+

+6. Security Considerations +

+

In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the following considerations apply.

+

+6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects +

+

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” 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 “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.

+

+6.2. Incorrect or Stale 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 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.

+

+6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports +

+

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.

+

+6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing +

+

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 shouldn’t assume that presence or absence of a “security.txt” file grants or denies permission for security testing. Any such permission may be indicates 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 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 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 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. Researches need to establish other secure means to verify them.

+

+6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports +

+

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 consult the organization’s vulnerability disclosure policy, if available, and review the contact information and/or resources referenced 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].

+

192.0.2.0 and 2001:db8:8:4::2 are used in this document following the uses indicated in [RFC6890].

+

+7.1. Well-Known URIs registry +

+

The “Well-Known URIs” registry should be updated with the following additional values (using the template from [RFC8615]):

+

URI suffix: security.txt

+

Change controller: IETF

+

Specification document(s): this document

+

Status: permanent

+

+7.2. Registry for security.txt Header 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.

+

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 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
    2. +
  2. Short description of the field
    3. +
  3. Whether the field can appear more than once
    4. +
  4. The document in which the specification of the field is published (if available)
    5. +
  5. New or updated status, which MUST be one of:
      +
    • current: The field is in current use
      • +
    • deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is discouraged
      • +
    • historic: The field is no longer in current use
      • +
    +
    6. +
  6. Change controller
    7. +
+

An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating that a registered field is historical or deprecated if appropriate.

+

The initial registry contains these values:

+
+   Field Name: Acknowledgments
+   Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized
+   Multiple Appearances: Yes
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+   Field Name: Canonical
+   Description: canonical URL for this file
+   Multiple Appearances: No
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+   Field Name: Contact
+   Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities
+   Multiple Appearances: Yes
+   Published in: this document
+   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
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+   Field Name: Hiring
+   Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions
+   Multiple Appearances: Yes
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+   Field Name: Policy
+   Description: link to security policy page
+   Multiple Appearances: Yes
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+   Field Name: Preferred-Languages
+   Description: list of preferred languages for security reports
+   Multiple Appearances: No
+   Published in: this document
+   Status: current
+   Change controller: IESG
+
+

+8. Contributors +

+

The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the development of this document by Tom Hudson, Jobert Abma, Gerben Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Max Smith, Eduardo Vela and Krzysztof Kotowicz.

+

The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by multiple members of IETF’s SAAG and SECDISPATCH lists.

+

+9. References

+

+9.1. Normative References

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[RFC1945] +Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996.
[RFC2046] +Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996.
[RFC2119] +Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2142] +Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997.
[RFC2277] +Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, January 1998.
[RFC2818] +Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000.
[RFC3629] +Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003.
[RFC3966] +Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004.
[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.
[RFC4880] +Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007.
[RFC5198] +Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008.
[RFC5234] +Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008.
[RFC5322] +Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008.
[RFC5646] +Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009.
[RFC6068] +Duerst, M., Masinter, L. and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto' URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010.
[RFC6125] +Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 2011.
[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.
[RFC7230] +Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014.
[RFC7231] +Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014.
[RFC8174] +Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.
[RFC8615] +Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019.
+

+9.2. Informative References

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[CERT.CVD] +Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022)", 2017.
[ISO.29147.2018] +International Organization for Standardization (ISO), "ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology — Security techniques — Vulnerability disclosure", 2018.
[RFC0793] +Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981.
[RFC2196] +Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997.
[RFC2350] +Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998.
[RFC2606] +Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999.
[RFC3013] +Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000.
[RFC6890] +Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R. and B. Haberman, "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013.
[RFC7485] +Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S. and A. Servin, "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects", RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015.
[RFC8126] +Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017.
+

+Appendix A. Note to Readers +

+

+ +
  • +Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.
+

Development of this draft takes place on Github at https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt

+

+Appendix B. Document History +

+

+ +
  • +Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.
+

+B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Moved to use IETF’s markdown tools for draft updates
    • +
  • Added table of contents and a fuller list of references
    • +
  • Moved file to .well-known URI and added IANA registration (#3)
    • +
  • Added extensibility with an IANA registry for fields (#34)
    • +
  • Added text explaining relationship to RFC 2142 / security@ email address (#25)
    • +
  • Scope expanded to include internal hosts, domains, IP addresses and file systems
    • +
  • Support for digital signatures added (#19)
    • +
+

The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-01

+

+B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Added appendix with pointer to Github and document history
    • +
  • Added external signature file to the well known URI registry (#59)
    • +
  • Added policy field (#53)
    • +
  • Added diagram explaining the location of the file on public vs. internal systems
    • +
  • Added recommendation that external signature files should use HTTPS (#55)
    • +
  • Added recommendation that organizations should monitor their security.txt files (#14)
    • +
+

The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-02

+

+B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Use “mailto” and “tel” (#62)
    • +
  • Fix typo in the “Example” section (#64)
    • +
  • Clarified that the root directory is a fallback option (#72)
    • +
  • Defined content-type for the response (#68)
    • +
  • Clarify the scope of the security.txt file (#69)
    • +
  • Cleaning up text based on the NITS tools suggestions (#82)
    • +
  • Added clarification for newline values
    • +
  • Clarified the encryption field language, added examples of DNS-stored encryption keys (#28 and #94)
    • +
  • Added “Hiring” field
    • +
+

+B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Added “Hiring” field to the registry section
    • +
  • Added an encryption example using a PGP fingerprint (#107)
    • +
  • Added reference to the mailing list (#111)
    • +
  • Added a section referencing related work (#113)
    • +
  • Fixes for idnits (#82)
    • +
  • Changing some references to informative instead of normative
    • +
  • Adding “Permission” field (#30)
    • +
  • Fixing remaining ABNF issues (#83)
    • +
  • Additional editorial changes and edits
    • +
+

+B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Addressing IETF feedback (#118)
    • +
  • Case sensitivity clarification (#127)
    • +
  • Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136)
    • +
  • 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
    • +
+

+B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Changing HTTPS to MUST (#55)
    • +
  • Adding language recommending encryption for email reports (#134)
    • +
  • Added language handling redirects (#143)
    • +
  • Expanded security considerations section and fixed typos (#30, #73, #103, #112)
    • +
+

+B.7. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Fixed ABNF grammar for non-chainable fields (#150)
    • +
  • Clarified ABNF grammar (#152)
    • +
  • Clarified redirect logic (#143)
    • +
  • Clarified comments (#158)
    • +
  • Updated references and template for well-known URI to RFC 8615
    • +
  • Fixed nits from the IETF validator
    • +
+

+B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Addressing AD feedback (#165)
    • +
  • Fix for ABNF grammar in lang-values (#164)
    • +
  • Fixing idnits warnings
    • +
  • Adding guidance for designated experts
    • +
+

+B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 +

+

+ +
    +
  • Added language and example regarding URI encoding (#176)
    • +
  • Add “Expires” field (#181)
    • +
  • Changed language from “directive” to “field” (#182)
    • +
  • Addressing last call feedback (#175, #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

+

Authors' Addresses

+
+
+ + Edwin Foudil + + + + + + + + + + + + + EMail: contact@edoverflow.com + +
+
+
+ + Yakov Shafranovich + + + Nightwatch Cybersecurity + + + + + + + + + + EMail: yakov+ietf@nightwatchcybersecurity.com + +
+
+ + + + diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md index 7c50ea1..aaba604 100644 --- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md +++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ 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" field to sign the location +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. @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ 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 {{expired}}) to indicate to researchers when +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 diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e0b9d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1400 @@ + + + + +Network Working Group E. Foudil +Internet-Draft +Intended status: Informational Y. Shafranovich +Expires: July 2, 2020 Nightwatch Cybersecurity + December 30, 2019 + + + A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices + draft-foudil-securitytxt-09 + +Abstract + + 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 in order to make it + easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities. + +Status of This Memo + + 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." + + This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2020. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2019 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 + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 1] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3. The Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. Scope of the File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.3. Line Separator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.4. Digital signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.5. Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.5.1. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.5.2. Canonical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.5.3. Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.5.4. Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.5.5. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.5.6. Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.5.7. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 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 . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4. Location of the security.txt file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.1. Web-based services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.2. Filesystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6.2. Incorrect or Stale Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports . . 14 + 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 7.1. Well-Known URIs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 7.2. Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . . 16 + 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + Appendix A. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 2] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + B.7. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + +1. Introduction + +1.1. Motivation, Prior Work and Scope + + 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 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 extensible way for + organizations to communicate information about their security + disclosure practices and ways to contact them, 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 as well as provide additional + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 3] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to + security researchers. + + 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 + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP + 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + +2. Note to Readers + + *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to + publication. + + Development of this draft takes place on Github at: + https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt + +3. The Specification + + This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location + that provides information for security researchers about the + vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization in + order to assist them in disclosing security vulnerabilities. + + The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST 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) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory + of a particular file system. + + 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- + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 4] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + 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]). + +3.1. Scope of the File + + 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 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: + + # The following only applies to example.com. + https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt + + # This only applies to subdomain.example.com. + https://subdomain.example.com/.well-known/security.txt + + # This security.txt file applies to IPv4 address of 192.0.2.0. + https://192.0.2.0/.well-known/security.txt + + # This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2. + https://[2001:db8:8:4::2]/.well-known/security.txt + + # This file applies to the /example/folder1 directory and subfolders. + /example/folder1/security.txt + +3.2. Comments + + Any line beginning with the "#" (%x30) symbol MUST be interpreted as + a comment. The content of the comment may contain any ASCII or + Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab + (%x09) and space (%x20) characters. + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 5] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + Example: + + # This is a comment. + +3.3. Line Separator + + Every line MUST end either with a carriage return and line feed + characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / + %x0A). + +3.4. Digital signature + + 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. + +3.5. Field Definitions + +3.5.1. Acknowledgments + + 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]). + + Example: + + Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html + + Example security acknowledgments page: + + + + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 6] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + We would like to thank the following researchers: + + (2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting + (2017-01-02) Alice Quinn - SQL injection + (2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting + (2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue + +3.5.2. Canonical + + 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. + + Canonical: https://www.example.com/.well-known/security.txt + Canonical: https://someserver.example.com/.well-known/security.txt + +3.5.3. Contact + + 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. + + 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 + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 7] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +3.5.4. Encryption + + 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: + + Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt + + Example of an OpenPGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS record: + +Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY + + Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint: + + Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f + +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. + 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 + +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 + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 8] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +3.5.7. Policy + + 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/disclosure-policy.html + +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 field MUST NOT appear more than once. + + Example (English, Spanish and French): + + Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr + +3.6. Example of an unsigned "security.txt" file + + # Our security address + Contact: mailto:security@example.com + + # Our OpenPGP key + Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt + + # Our security policy + Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html + + # Our security acknowledgments page + Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 9] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +3.7. Example of a signed "security.txt" file + + ----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- + Hash: SHA256 + + # Canonical URL + Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt + + # Our security address + Contact: mailto:security@example.com + + # Our OpenPGP key + Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt + + # Our security policy + Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html + + # Our security acknowledgments page + Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html + -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + Version: GnuPG v2.2 + + [signature] + -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +4. Location of the security.txt file + +4.1. Web-based services + + 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. + +4.2. Filesystems + + File systems SHOULD place the "security.txt" file under the root + directory; e.g., "/security.txt", "C:\security.txt". + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 10] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + Example file system: + + /example-directory-1/ + /example-directory-2/ + /example-directory-3/ + /example-file + /security.txt + +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 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]). + +5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar + + The expected file format of the security.txt file is plain text (MIME + type "text/plain") as defined in section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046] and is + encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-Unicode form [RFC5198]. + + The following is an ABNF definition of the security.txt format, using + the conventions defined in [RFC5234]. + +body = signed / unsigned + +signed = sign-header unsigned sign-footer + +sign-header = < headers and line 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 + +line = (field / comment) eol + +eol = *WSP [CR] LF + +field = ack-field / + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 11] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + can-field / + contact-field / + encryption-field / + hiring-field / + policy-field / + ext-field + +fs = ":" + +comment = "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF) + +ack-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri + +can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri + +contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri + +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 + +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 4.3 + + + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 12] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +6. Security Considerations + + In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the + following considerations apply. + +6.1. Compromised Files and Redirects + + 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" 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 + "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. + +6.2. Incorrect or Stale 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 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. + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 13] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +6.3. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports + + 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. + +6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing + + 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 shouldn't assume that presence or absence of + a "security.txt" file grants or denies permission for security + testing. Any such permission may be indicates 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 + 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 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 + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 14] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + 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. + + o DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard + character '*' as the complete left-most label within the + identifier. + + 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. Researches need to establish other secure + means to verify them. + +6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports + + 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 consult the organization's vulnerability + disclosure policy, if available, and review the contact information + and/or resources referenced within the "security.txt" file before + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 15] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + 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]. + + 192.0.2.0 and 2001:db8:8:4::2 are used in this document following the + uses indicated in [RFC6890]. + +7.1. Well-Known URIs registry + + The "Well-Known URIs" registry should be updated with the following + additional values (using the template from [RFC8615]): + + URI suffix: security.txt + + Change controller: IETF + + Specification document(s): this document + + Status: permanent + +7.2. Registry for security.txt Header 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. + + 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 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 + + 2. Short description of the field + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 16] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + 3. Whether the field can appear more than once + + 4. The document in which the specification of the field is published + (if available) + + 5. New or updated status, which MUST be one of: + + * current: The field is in current use + + * deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is + discouraged + + * historic: The field is no longer in current use + + 6. Change controller + + An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating + that a registered field is historical or deprecated if appropriate. + + The initial registry contains these values: + + Field Name: Acknowledgments + Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized + Multiple Appearances: Yes + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + + Field Name: Canonical + Description: canonical URL for this file + Multiple Appearances: No + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + + Field Name: Contact + Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities + Multiple Appearances: Yes + Published in: this document + 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 + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 17] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + Field Name: Encryption + Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication + Multiple Appearances: Yes + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + + Field Name: Hiring + Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions + Multiple Appearances: Yes + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + + Field Name: Policy + Description: link to security policy page + Multiple Appearances: Yes + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + + Field Name: Preferred-Languages + Description: list of preferred languages for security reports + Multiple Appearances: No + Published in: this document + Status: current + Change controller: IESG + +8. Contributors + + The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the + development of this document by Tom Hudson, Jobert Abma, Gerben + Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Max Smith, + Eduardo Vela and Krzysztof Kotowicz. + + The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by + multiple members of IETF's SAAG and SECDISPATCH lists. + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext + Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, + DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996, + . + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 18] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail + Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996, + . + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and + Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997, + . + + [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and + Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, + January 1998, . + + [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, + . + + [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO + 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November + 2003, . + + [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", + RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004, + . + + [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, + . + + [RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R. + Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007, + . + + [RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network + Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008, + . + + [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax + Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, + . + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 19] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, + . + + [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying + Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, + September 2009, . + + [RFC6068] Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto' + URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010, + . + + [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and + Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity + within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 + (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer + Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March + 2011, . + + [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, + . + + [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, + . + + [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer + Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + + [RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers + (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019, + . + +9.2. Informative References + + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 20] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + [CERT.CVD] + Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon + University, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability + Disclosure (CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022)", 2017. + + [ISO.29147.2018] + International Organization for Standardization (ISO), + "ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology -- Security + techniques -- Vulnerability disclosure", 2018. + + [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, + RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, + . + + [RFC2196] Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997, + . + + [RFC2350] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer + Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998, + . + + [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS + Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999, + . + + [RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider + Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000, + . + + [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, + "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, + RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, + . + + [RFC7485] Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin, + "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects", + RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015, + . + + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, + RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, + . + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 21] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +Appendix A. Note to Readers + + *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to + publication. + + Development of this draft takes place on Github at + https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt + +Appendix B. Document History + + *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to + publication. + +B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 + + o Moved to use IETF's markdown tools for draft updates + + o Added table of contents and a fuller list of references + + o Moved file to .well-known URI and added IANA registration (#3) + + o Added extensibility with an IANA registry for fields (#34) + + o Added text explaining relationship to RFC 2142 / security@ email + address (#25) + + o Scope expanded to include internal hosts, domains, IP addresses + and file systems + + o Support for digital signatures added (#19) + + The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: + https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 + +B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 + + o Added appendix with pointer to Github and document history + + o Added external signature file to the well known URI registry (#59) + + o Added policy field (#53) + + o Added diagram explaining the location of the file on public vs. + internal systems + + o Added recommendation that external signature files should use + HTTPS (#55) + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 22] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + + o Added recommendation that organizations should monitor their + security.txt files (#14) + + The full list of changes can be viewed via the IETF document tracker: + https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 + +B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 + + o Use "mailto" and "tel" (#62) + + o Fix typo in the "Example" section (#64) + + o Clarified that the root directory is a fallback option (#72) + + o Defined content-type for the response (#68) + + o Clarify the scope of the security.txt file (#69) + + o Cleaning up text based on the NITS tools suggestions (#82) + + o Added clarification for newline values + + o Clarified the encryption field language, added examples of DNS- + stored encryption keys (#28 and #94) + + o Added "Hiring" field + +B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 + + o Added "Hiring" field to the registry section + + o Added an encryption example using a PGP fingerprint (#107) + + o Added reference to the mailing list (#111) + + o Added a section referencing related work (#113) + + o Fixes for idnits (#82) + + o Changing some references to informative instead of normative + + o Adding "Permission" field (#30) + + o Fixing remaining ABNF issues (#83) + + o Additional editorial changes and edits + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 23] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +B.5. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 + + o Addressing IETF feedback (#118) + + o Case sensitivity clarification (#127) + + o Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136) + + 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) + + o Changed ".security.txt" to "security.txt" to be consistent + +B.6. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 + + o Changing HTTPS to MUST (#55) + + o Adding language recommending encryption for email reports (#134) + + o Added language handling redirects (#143) + + 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 fields (#150) + + o Clarified ABNF grammar (#152) + + o Clarified redirect logic (#143) + + o Clarified comments (#158) + + o Updated references and template for well-known URI to RFC 8615 + + o Fixed nits from the IETF validator + + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 24] + +Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019 + + +B.8. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 + + o Addressing AD feedback (#165) + + o Fix for ABNF grammar in lang-values (#164) + + o Fixing idnits warnings + + o Adding guidance for designated experts + +B.9. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 + + 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 (#175, #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 + +Authors' Addresses + + Edwin Foudil + + Email: contact@edoverflow.com + + + Yakov Shafranovich + Nightwatch Cybersecurity + + Email: yakov+ietf@nightwatchcybersecurity.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Foudil & Shafranovich Expires July 2, 2020 [Page 25] From 39a296d0175627f1cecf8275c0e524a0f2ffac45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nightwatchcyber Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:38:23 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/7] more fixes --- draft-foudil-securitytxt.html | 33 ++- draft-foudil-securitytxt.md | 36 ++- draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt | 424 +++++++++++++++++----------------- 3 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 251 deletions(-) diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html index f9e12e2..8eb252f 100644 --- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html +++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html @@ -341,9 +341,9 @@ - - - + + + @@ -365,12 +365,12 @@ Y. Shafranovich -Expires: July 2, 2020 +Expires: July 4, 2020 Nightwatch Cybersecurity -December 30, 2019 +January 01, 2020 @@ -381,14 +381,14 @@ draft-foudil-securitytxt-09

Abstract

-

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 in order to make it easier for researchers 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.

Status of This Memo

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."

-

This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2020.

+

This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2020.

Copyright Notice

-

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.

@@ -513,8 +513,7 @@

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 extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure practices and ways to contact them, 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 as well as provide additional information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to security researchers.

-

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].

+

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].

1.2. Terminology

@@ -530,7 +529,7 @@

3. The Specification

-

This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location that provides information for security researchers about the vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization in order to assist them in disclosing security vulnerabilities.

+

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.

The file is named “security.txt”, and this file MUST 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) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.

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].

@@ -635,7 +634,7 @@

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. The value of this field follows the format defined in section 3.3 of [RFC5322].

+

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
@@ -714,7 +713,7 @@ 

 

 4.1. Web-based services
 

-
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.

+
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.

 

 4.2. Filesystems
@@ -811,7 +810,7 @@ 

 
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.

 
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
+6.2. Incorrect or Stale 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 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.

@@ -824,7 +823,7 @@ 

 6.4. No Implied Permission for Testing
 

 
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 shouldn’t assume that presence or absence of a “security.txt” file grants or denies permission for security testing.  Any such permission may be indicates in the company’s vulnerability disclosure policy (as per Section 3.5.7) or a new field (as per Section 4.3).

+
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
 

@@ -842,13 +841,13 @@ 

 
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. Researches need to establish other secure means to verify them.

+
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.

 

 6.7. Spam and Spurious Reports
 

 
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 consult the organization’s vulnerability disclosure policy, if available, and review the contact information and/or resources referenced within the “security.txt” file 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.

 

 7. IANA Considerations
 

diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
index aaba604..76de87a 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ 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
-in order to make it easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.
+to make it easier for researchers to report security vulnerabilities.
 
 --- middle
 
@@ -67,18 +67,11 @@ these address the issue of how security researchers can locate vulnerability dis
 practices and contact information for organizations in order to report
 security vulnerabilities.
 
-In this document, we define a richer and extensible way
+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, 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 as well as provide
-additional information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to security researchers.
-
-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
 
@@ -98,8 +91,8 @@ 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 about the vulnerability disclosure
-practices of a particular organization in order to assist them 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.
 
 The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST be placed under the
 /.well-known/ path ("/.well-known/security.txt") {{!RFC8615}} of a domain name or IP address for web
@@ -287,8 +280,8 @@ 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.
-The value of this field follows the format defined in section 3.3 of {{!RFC5322}}.
+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.
 
@@ -390,7 +383,7 @@ Version: GnuPG v2.2
 
 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
+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
@@ -520,7 +513,7 @@ When retrieving the file and any resources referenced in the file, researchers s
 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
@@ -561,7 +554,7 @@ researchers reporting security issues to that organization.
 
 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 indicates in the company's vulnerability disclosure policy
+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
@@ -598,7 +591,7 @@ 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. Researches need to establish other secure means to
+for this specification. Security researchers need to establish other secure means to
 verify them.
 
 ## Spam and Spurious Reports
@@ -614,8 +607,7 @@ 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 vulnerability disclosure policy, if available,
-and review the contact information and/or resources referenced within the "security.txt"
+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
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
index e0b9d72..13c445e 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: July 2, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
-                                                       December 30, 2019
+Expires: July 4, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
+                                                        January 01, 2020
 
 
        A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices
@@ -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 their vulnerability disclosure practices in order to make it
-   easier for researchers 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 July 2, 2020.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 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 July 2, 2020                  [Page 1]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 1]
 
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
@@ -76,51 +76,51 @@ Table of Contents
        3.5.1.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
        3.5.2.  Canonical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
        3.5.3.  Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
-       3.5.4.  Encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
+       3.5.4.  Encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
        3.5.5.  Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
        3.5.6.  Hiring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
-       3.5.7.  Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
+       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 . . . . . . . . .  10
+     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.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    5.  File Format Description and ABNF Grammar  . . . . . . . . . .  11
-   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
      6.1.  Compromised Files and Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
      6.2.  Incorrect or Stale Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
-     6.3.  Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports  . .  14
+     6.3.  Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports  . .  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
-   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
+   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
      7.1.  Well-Known URIs registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
      7.2.  Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . .  16
    8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
      9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
      9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
-   Appendix A.  Note to Readers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
+   Appendix A.  Note to Readers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
    Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
      B.1.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 2]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 2]
 
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
      B.2.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
      B.3.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
      B.4.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
-     B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
+     B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
      B.6.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-05 . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
      B.7.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06 . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
-     B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
+     B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07 . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
      B.9.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08 . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
 
@@ -153,29 +153,22 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    vulnerability disclosure practices and contact information for
    organizations in order to report security vulnerabilities.
 
-   In this document, we define a richer and extensible way for
+   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, 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 as well as provide additional
+   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 July 2, 2020                  [Page 3]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-   information about their vulnerability disclosure practices useful to
-   security researchers.
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 3]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu 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
 
@@ -196,9 +189,9 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 3.  The Specification
 
    This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location
-   that provides information for security researchers about the
-   vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization in
-   order to assist them 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.
 
    The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST be placed under
    the /.well-known/ path ("/.well-known/security.txt") [RFC8615] of a
@@ -218,14 +211,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    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-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 4]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    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].
@@ -233,6 +218,14 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    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
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 4]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    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
@@ -274,17 +267,20 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab
    (%x09) and space (%x20) characters.
 
+   Example:
+
+   # This is a comment.
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 5]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-   Example:
 
-   # This is a comment.
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 5]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
 
 3.3.  Line Separator
 
@@ -325,25 +321,22 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
    Example security acknowledgments page:
 
+   We would like to thank the following researchers:
 
+   (2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting
+   (2017-01-02) Alice Quinn  - SQL injection
+   (2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting
+   (2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue
 
 
 
 
 
 
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 6]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 6]
 
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
-   We would like to thank the following researchers:
-
-   (2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting
-   (2017-01-02) Alice Quinn  - SQL injection
-   (2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting
-   (2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue
 
 3.5.2.  Canonical
 
@@ -384,16 +377,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    Contact: tel:+1-201-555-0123
    Contact: https://example.com/security-contact.html
 
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 7]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
 3.5.4.  Encryption
 
    This field indicates an encryption key that security researchers
@@ -403,6 +386,14 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    web URL, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per section 2.7.2 of
    [RFC7230]).
 
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 7]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu 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
@@ -424,9 +415,9 @@ Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
 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.
-   The value of this field follows the format defined in section 3.3 of
-   [RFC5322].
+   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.
 
@@ -440,16 +431,6 @@ Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
 
    Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
 
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 8]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
 3.5.7.  Policy
 
    This field indicates a link to where the vulnerability disclosure
@@ -462,6 +443,13 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
    Policy: https://example.com/disclosure-policy.html
 
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 8]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
 3.5.8.  Preferred-Languages
 
    This field can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that
@@ -496,17 +484,27 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    # Our security acknowledgments page
    Acknowledgments: https://example.com/hall-of-fame.html
 
+3.7.  Example of a signed "security.txt" file
+
+
+
+
+
 
 
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                  [Page 9]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-3.7.  Example of a signed "security.txt" file
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 9]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
 
    ----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA256
@@ -540,7 +538,7 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    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
+   "/.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
@@ -554,15 +552,15 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    File systems SHOULD place the "security.txt" file under the root
    directory; e.g., "/security.txt", "C:\security.txt".
 
+   Example file system:
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 10]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 10]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
-   Example file system:
 
    /example-directory-1/
    /example-directory-2/
@@ -610,16 +608,16 @@ line             =  (field / comment) eol
 eol              =  *WSP [CR] LF
 
 field            =  ack-field /
+                    can-field /
+                    contact-field /
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 11]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 11]
 
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
-                    can-field /
-                    contact-field /
                     encryption-field /
                     hiring-field /
                     policy-field /
@@ -662,22 +660,19 @@ unstructured     =  < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
    "ext-field" refers to extension fields, which are discussed in
    Section 4.3
 
+6.  Security Considerations
 
+   In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the
+   following considerations apply.
 
 
 
 
 
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 12]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 12]
 
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
-6.  Security Considerations
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
-   In addition to the security considerations of [RFC8615], the
-   following considerations apply.
 
 6.1.  Compromised Files and Redirects
 
@@ -720,16 +715,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    numbers are kept current, are accessible, controlled by the
    organization, and are kept secure.
 
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 13]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
 6.3.  Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources and Reports
 
    It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files
@@ -737,6 +722,14 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    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
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 13]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu 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.
@@ -760,7 +753,7 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 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 indicates in the company's
+   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).
 
@@ -778,19 +771,20 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    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 2, 2020                 [Page 14]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-   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 4, 2020                 [Page 14]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
 
    o  DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard
       character '*' as the complete left-most label within the
@@ -813,8 +807,8 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    used.
 
    However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope
-   for this specification.  Researches need to 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
 
@@ -830,25 +824,23 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to
    triage security reports.
 
-   Security researchers should consult the organization's vulnerability
-   disclosure policy, if available, and review the contact information
-   and/or resources referenced within the "security.txt" file before
+   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 July 2, 2020                 [Page 15]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-   submitting reports in an automated fashion or as resulting from
-   automated scans.
 
-7.  IANA Considerations
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 15]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu 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].
@@ -890,14 +882,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
    2.  Short description of the field
 
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 16]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    3.  Whether the field can appear more than once
 
    4.  The document in which the specification of the field is published
@@ -907,6 +891,13 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
        *  current: The field is in current use
 
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 16]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
        *  deprecated: The field is in current use, but its use is
           discouraged
 
@@ -947,13 +938,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    Status: current
    Change controller: IESG
 
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 17]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    Field Name: Encryption
    Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication
    Multiple Appearances: Yes
@@ -962,6 +946,14 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
    Change controller: IESG
 
    Field Name: Hiring
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 17]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions
    Multiple Appearances: Yes
    Published in: this document
@@ -1001,15 +993,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996,
               .
 
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 18]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
               Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
@@ -1020,6 +1003,13 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
               .
 
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 18]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    [RFC2142]  Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and
               Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997,
               .
@@ -1059,13 +1049,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
               .
 
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 19]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
               .
@@ -1074,6 +1057,15 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
               September 2009, .
 
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 19]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    [RFC6068]  Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
               URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
               .
@@ -1111,17 +1103,6 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 9.2.  Informative References
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 20]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
    [CERT.CVD]
               Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon
               University, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability
@@ -1132,6 +1113,15 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               "ISO/IEC 29147:2018, Information technology -- Security
               techniques -- Vulnerability disclosure", 2018.
 
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 20]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
               RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
               .
@@ -1169,22 +1159,24 @@ Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
               RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
               .
 
+Appendix A.  Note to Readers
 
+      *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to
+      publication.
 
+   Development of this draft takes place on Github at
+   https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 21]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-Appendix A.  Note to Readers
 
-      *Note to the RFC Editor:* Please remove this section prior to
-      publication.
 
-   Development of this draft takes place on Github at
-   https://github.com/securitytxt/security-txt
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 21]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
 
 Appendix B.  Document History
 
@@ -1226,19 +1218,21 @@ B.2.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01
    o  Added recommendation that external signature files should use
       HTTPS (#55)
 
+   o  Added recommendation that organizations should monitor their
+      security.txt files (#14)
 
+   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 2, 2020                 [Page 22]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
 
 
-   o  Added recommendation that organizations should monitor their
-      security.txt files (#14)
 
-   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 4, 2020                 [Page 22]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
 
 B.3.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02
 
@@ -1281,15 +1275,6 @@ B.4.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03
 
    o  Additional editorial changes and edits
 
-
-
-
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 23]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
-
 B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
 
    o  Addressing IETF feedback (#118)
@@ -1298,6 +1283,13 @@ B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
 
    o  Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136)
 
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 23]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
+
+
    o  Removed permission field (#30)
 
    o  Removed signature field and switched to inline signatures (#93 and
@@ -1335,26 +1327,24 @@ B.7.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-06
 
    o  Fixed nits from the IETF validator
 
+B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07
 
+   o  Addressing AD feedback (#165)
 
+   o  Fix for ABNF grammar in lang-values (#164)
 
+   o  Fixing idnits warnings
 
+   o  Adding guidance for designated experts
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 24]
-
-Internet-DraftA Format for Describing Vulnerability DisclosDecember 2019
-
 
-B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07
 
-   o  Addressing AD feedback (#165)
 
-   o  Fix for ABNF grammar in lang-values (#164)
-
-   o  Fixing idnits warnings
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 24]
+
+Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
-   o  Adding guidance for designated experts
 
 B.9.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-08
 
@@ -1397,4 +1387,14 @@ Authors' Addresses
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 2, 2020                 [Page 25]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 25]

From bcef5d3587df33d815685df787fb9b9f9ad1a48d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: nightwatchcyber 
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 15:14:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] fixes

---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html | 12 +++----
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.md   |  4 +--
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt  | 62 +++++++++++++++++------------------
 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)

diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
index 8eb252f..9a9a183 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@
 
   
   
-  
+  
   
   
 
@@ -365,12 +365,12 @@
 Y. Shafranovich
 
 
-Expires: July 4, 2020
+Expires: July 8, 2020
 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
 
 
 
-January 01, 2020
+January 05, 2020
 
 
     	
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ 
Status of This Memo

 
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."

-
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2020.

+
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2020.

 
Copyright Notice

 
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.

@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ 

 
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.

 
The file is named “security.txt”, and this file MUST 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) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.

-
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].

+
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]).

 

@@ -807,7 +807,7 @@ 

 

 
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” 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 “security.txt” file looks suspicious or compromised, it should not be used.

+
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.

 

 6.2. Incorrect or Stale Information
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
index 76de87a..66e0e23 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ properties. For legacy compatibility, a security.txt file might be placed at the
 
 For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 {{!RFC1945}} or higher version, 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 a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.
 
-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
+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
@@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ 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 "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised,
+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
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
index 13c445e..66715f0 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: July 4, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
-                                                        January 01, 2020
+Expires: July 8, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
+                                                        January 05, 2020
 
 
        A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ 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 July 4, 2020.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2020.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Copyright Notice
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 1]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 1]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Table of Contents
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 2]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 2]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 3]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 3]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -208,8 +208,8 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
    of a particular file system.
 
    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 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
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 4]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 4]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 5]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 5]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 6]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 6]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 7]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 7]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 8]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 8]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                  [Page 9]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 9]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 10]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 10]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ field            =  ack-field /
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 11]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 11]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ unstructured     =  < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 12]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 12]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
    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
+   records before using the information contained in the file.  If the
    "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised, it should not be
    used.
 
@@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 13]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 13]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 14]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 14]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 15]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 15]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 16]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 16]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 17]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 17]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 18]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 18]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1061,7 +1061,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 19]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 19]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 20]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 20]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ Appendix A.  Note to Readers
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 21]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 21]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1229,7 +1229,7 @@ B.2.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 22]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 22]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 23]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 23]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1341,7 +1341,7 @@ B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 24]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 24]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1397,4 +1397,4 @@ Authors' Addresses
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 4, 2020                 [Page 25]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 25]

From 26a3ea534c3199e7c6b32232344e050bb8f69f11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: nightwatchcyber 
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 17:45:07 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 5/7] more last back fixes

---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html |  29 +++++-----
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.md   |  23 +++++---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt  | 100 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
 3 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)

diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
index 9a9a183..a022c77 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@
 
 
 
-
+
 
 
 
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@
 
   
   
-  
+  
   
   
 
@@ -365,12 +365,12 @@
 Y. Shafranovich
 
 
-Expires: July 8, 2020
+Expires: July 9, 2020
 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
 
 
 
-January 05, 2020
+January 06, 2020
 
 
     	
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ 
Status of This Memo

 
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."

-
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2020.

+
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2020.

 
Copyright Notice

 
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.

@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ 
Table of Contents

 
 
  • 8.   Contributors
 
    • 
@@ -530,15 +530,16 @@ 
    
 3. The Specification
 
    
 
    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.
    
-
    The file is named “security.txt”, and this file MUST 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) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a “security.txt” file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.
    
-
    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]).
    
+
    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 a particular file system.
    
+
    On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version and the “https” scheme (as per 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]).
    
 
    
 3.1. Scope of the File
 
    
-
    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 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.
    
+
    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 not to any of its parent or sibling folders.  However, it will apply to all subfolders.
    
 
    Some examples appear below:
    
 
     # The following only applies to example.com.
@@ -862,9 +863,9 @@ 
    
 
    Specification document(s): this document
    
 
    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 [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 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:
    
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
index 66e0e23..58d29ad 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
@@ -94,11 +94,16 @@ 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.
 
-The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST 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}}).
+By convention, the file is named "security.txt".
 
-For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 {{!RFC1945}} or higher version, 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 a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of a particular file system.
+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 a particular file system.
+
+On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 {{!RFC1945}} or higher version
+and the "https" scheme (as per 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
@@ -122,8 +127,8 @@ contain URIs using percent-encoding (as per section 2.1 of {{!RFC3986}}).
 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
-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.
+in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders.
+However, it will apply to all subfolders.
 
 Some examples appear below:
 
@@ -631,10 +636,10 @@ 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
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
index 66715f0..108a4d3 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: July 8, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
-                                                        January 05, 2020
+Expires: July 9, 2020                           Nightwatch Cybersecurity
+                                                        January 06, 2020
 
 
        A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ 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 July 8, 2020.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2020.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Copyright Notice
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 1]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 1]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ Table of Contents
      6.7.  Spam and Spurious Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
      7.1.  Well-Known URIs registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
-     7.2.  Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . .  16
+     7.2.  Registry for security.txt Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
    8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
      9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Table of Contents
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 2]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 2]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 3]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 3]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -193,19 +193,20 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
    practices of a particular organization.  This is intended to help
    security researchers when disclosing security vulnerabilities.
 
-   The file is named "security.txt", and this file MUST 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).
+   By convention, the file is named "security.txt".
 
-   For web-based services, the file MUST be accessible via the Hypertext
-   Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version, 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 a "security.txt" file SHOULD be placed in the root directory
-   of a particular file system.
+   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 a particular file system.
+
+   On HTTP servers, the file MUST be accessed via the Hypertext Transfer
+   Protocol (HTTP) 1.0 [RFC1945] or higher version and the "https"
+   scheme (as per 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
@@ -217,15 +218,15 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
    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
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 4]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 4]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
+   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
@@ -239,9 +240,9 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
    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 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.
+   only apply to the folder in which it is located, and not to any of
+   its parent or sibling folders.  However, it will apply to all
+   subfolders.
 
    Some examples appear below:
 
@@ -276,8 +277,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 5]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 5]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 6]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 6]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 7]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 7]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 8]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 8]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                  [Page 9]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 9]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 10]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 10]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ field            =  ack-field /
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 11]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 11]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ unstructured     =  < imported from section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 12]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 12]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 13]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 13]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 14]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 14]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 15]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 15]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -858,11 +858,11 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
    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
@@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 16]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 16]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 17]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 17]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 18]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 18]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1061,7 +1061,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 19]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 19]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 20]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 20]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ Appendix A.  Note to Readers
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 21]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 21]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1229,7 +1229,7 @@ B.2.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 22]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 22]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 23]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 23]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1341,7 +1341,7 @@ B.8.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-07
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 24]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 24]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
@@ -1397,4 +1397,4 @@ Authors' Addresses
 
 
 
-Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 8, 2020                 [Page 25]
+Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                 [Page 25]

From 8926a16c7d9ad6111a49dba3ed02d0a0ef6cc852 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: nightwatchcyber 
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 18:53:09 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] more lang fixes

---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html |  5 +++--
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.md   |  7 ++++---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt  | 14 +++++++-------
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
index a022c77..142c7fd 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
@@ -539,8 +539,9 @@ 
    
 
    
 3.1. Scope of the File
 
    
-
    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 not to any of its parent or sibling folders.  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.
    
+
    For file systems, a “security.txt” file MUST only apply to the folder in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders.  However, it will apply to all subfolders.
    
+
    Some examples appear below:
    
 
     # The following only applies to example.com.
 https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
index 58d29ad..c64135f 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.md
@@ -124,9 +124,10 @@ 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 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
+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.
+
+For file systems, a "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the folder
 in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling folders.
 However, it will apply to all subfolders.
 
diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
index 108a4d3..0cc9bfa 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt
@@ -237,12 +237,13 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 3.1.  Scope of the File
 
-   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 not to any of
-   its parent or sibling folders.  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.
+
+   For file systems, a "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the folder
+   in which it is located, and not to any of its parent or sibling
+   folders.  However, it will apply to all subfolders.
 
    Some examples appear below:
 
@@ -276,7 +277,6 @@ Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020
 
 
 
-
 Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 9, 2020                  [Page 5]
 
 Internet-DrafA Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosu January 2020

From 28424b074db202bf1cd22f2474578c8f3ad16916 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: nightwatchcyber 
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:15:13 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] additional updates

---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.html |  20 +++---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.md   |  16 ++---
 draft-foudil-securitytxt.txt  | 128 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
 3 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)

diff --git a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
index 142c7fd..aa0d2c5 100644
--- a/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
+++ b/draft-foudil-securitytxt.html
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 
   
 
-  A Format for Describing Vulnerability Disclosure Practices
+  A Method for Web Security Policies