Network Working Group E. Foudil
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational Y. Shafranovich
Expires: January 16, 2019 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
July 15, 2018
A Method for Web Security Policies
draft-foudil-securitytxt-04
Abstract
When security risks are discovered by independent security
researchers, they often lack the channels to disclose them properly.
As a result, security issues may be left unreported. This document
defines a standard ("security.txt") to help organizations describe
the process for security researchers to follow in order to disclose
security vulnerabilities securely.
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 January 16, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 January 16, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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 and Prior Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Separate Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.3. Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.4. Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.5. Permission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.6. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.7. Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Example of a "security.txt" file . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Location of the security.txt file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Web-based services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Filesystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Internal hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Well-Known URIs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.1. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.2. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.3. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.4. Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation and Prior Work
Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable
to responsibly disclose security issues to companies because there is
no course of action laid out or 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 issues. That convention provides only a single,
email-based channel of communication for security issues 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 companies in order to
responsibly disclose security issues.
In this document, we define a richer, machine-parsable and more
extensible way for companies to communicate information about their
security disclosure policies, which is not limited to email and also
allows for additional features such as encryption. This standard is
designed to help assist with the security disclosure process by
making it easier for companies to designate the preferred steps for
researchers to take when trying to reach out to them with security
issues.
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.
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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
A mailing list is available for discussion at:
https://www.freelists.org/list/securitytxt
3. The Specification
This standard defines a text file to be placed in a known location
that provides information for security researchers to assist in
disclosing security issues.
The file is named "security.txt", and this file SHOULD be placed
under the /.well-known/ path ("/.well-known/security.txt") [RFC5785]
of a domain name or IP address for web properties. If it is not
possible to place the security.txt file in the /.well-known/ path or
setup a redirect, web-based services MAY place the file in the top-
level path of a given web domain or IP address ("/security.txt") as a
fall back option. For web-based services, the instructions MUST be
accessible via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol [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]. 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:"). Directives MUST be case-insensitive. The
"value" comes after the directive ("https://example.com/security").
A "field" MUST alway 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 you MUST
have a separate line for every field. One MUST NOT chain multiple
values for a single directive and everything MUST be in a separate
field. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular
field, any directive MAY appear multiple times.
3.1. Scope
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
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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.
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.
http://192.0.2.0/.well-known/security.txt
# This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2.
http://[2001:db8:8:4::2]/.well-known/security.txt
# This security.txt file applies to the /example/folder1 directory.
/example/folder1/security.txt
3.2. Comments
Any line beginning with the "#" (%x30) symbol MUST be interpreted as
a comment.
Example:
# This is a comment.
You MAY use one or more comments as descriptive text immediately
before the field. Parsers SHOULD associate the comments with the
respective field.
3.3. Separate Fields
A separate line is REQUIRED for every new value and field. You MUST
NOT chain everything into a single field. 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. Field Definitions
3.4.1. Acknowledgments
This directive allows you to link to a page where security
researchers are recognized for their reports. The page being linked
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
to SHOULD list individuals or companies that disclosed security
vulnerabilities and worked with you to remediate the issue.
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
3.4.2. Contact
This directive allows you to provide an address that researchers
SHOULD use for reporting security issues. The value MAY be an email
address, a phone number and/or a contact page with more information.
The "Contact:" directive MUST always be present in a security.txt
file. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST be begin
with "https://". Security email addresses SHOULD use the conventions
defined in section 4 of [RFC2142], but there is no requirement for
this directive to be an email address.
The value MUST follow the general syntax described in [RFC3986].
This means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes MUST be used when
specifying email addresses and telephone numbers.
The precedence SHOULD be in listed order. The first field is the
preferred method of contact. In the example below, the e-mail
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
3.4.3. Encryption
This directive allows you to point to an encryption key that security
researchers SHOULD use for encrypted communication. You MUST NOT
directly add your key to the field, instead the value of this field
MUST be a URI pointing to a location where the key can be retrieved
from. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it MUST be begin
with "https://".
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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 signature file referenced in
Section 3.4.7.
Example of a PGP key available from a web server:
Encryption: https://example.com/pgp-key.txt
Example of a PGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS:
Encryption: dns:5d2d37ab76d47d36._openpgpkey.example.com?type=OPENPGPKEY
Example of a PGP key being referenced by its fingerprint:
Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
3.4.4. 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 SHOULD be begin with "https://".
Hiring: https://example.com/jobs.html
3.4.5. Permission
The presence of the "Permission" directive is used to indicate to
security researchers that they MUST NOT perform any kind of testing
against the resource hosting the "security.txt" file. This field
MUST have a value which is REQUIRED to be set to the string "none".
Other values MUST NOT be used. This field MUST NOT appear more than
once.
The absence of the "Permission" directive or the use of any other
value other than "none" for this directive MUST NOT be interpreted by
researchers as being granted permission to test the resource.
Additionally, the presence or absence of this directive MUST NOT be
interpreted as having any legal value.
Example:
Permission: none
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
3.4.6. Policy
This directive allows you to link to where your security policy and/
or disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers
understand what you are looking for and how to report security
vulnerabilities. If this directive indicates a web URL, then it
SHOULD begin with "https://".
Example:
Policy: https://example.com/security-policy.html
3.4.7. Signature
This directive allows you to specify a full URI (as per [RFC3986]) of
an external signature file that can be used to check the authenticity
of a "security.txt" file. External signature files SHOULD be named
"security.txt.sig" and SHOULD be placed under the /.well-known/ path
("/.well-known/security.txt.sig"). If this directive indicates a web
URL, then it MUST be begin with "https://". This directive MUST NOT
appear more than once.
It is RECOMMENDED to implementors that this directive be always used.
When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the file, it is always
the security researcher's responsibility to make sure the key being
specified is indeed one they trust.
Here is an example of an external signature file.
Signature: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt.sig
3.5. Example of a "security.txt" file
# Our security address
Contact: mailto:security@example.com
# Our PGP 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
# Verify this security.txt file
Signature: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt.sig
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
4. Location of the security.txt file
External
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Default |
| +-----------------------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | | Redirect | | |
| | /.well-known/security.txt <----------+ /security.txt | |
| | | | | |
| +-----------------------------+ +-----------------+ |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Internal
+------------------------+
| |
| +------------------+ |
| | | |
| | /.security.txt | |
| | | |
| +------------------+ |
| |
+------------------------+
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. A security.txt file located under the top-level path
SHOULD either redirect (as per section 6.4 of [RFC7231]) to the
security.txt file under the /.well-known/ path or be used as a fall
back.
4.2. Filesystems
File systems SHOULD place the security.txt file under the root
directory; e.g., /.security.txt, C:.security.txt.
user:/$ l
.security.txt
example-directory-1/
example-directory-2/
example-directory-3/
example-file
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
4.3. Internal hosts
A .security.txt file SHOULD be placed in the root directory of an
internal host.
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.
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] and [RFC5322].
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
body = *line (permission-field eol) (signature-field eol) *line
line = *1(field / comment) eol
eol = *WSP [CR] LF
field = acknowledgments-field /
contact-field /
encryption-field /
hiring-field /
policy-field /
ext-field
fs = ":"
comment = "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %xA0-E007F)
acknowledgments-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri
contact-field = "Contact" fs SP (email / uri / phone)
email = <Email address as per {{RFC5322}}>
phone = "+" *1(DIGIT / "-" / "(" / ")" / SP)
uri = <URI as per {{RFC3986}}>
encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri
hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri
permission-field = "Permission" fs SP "none"
policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri
signature-field = "Signature" fs SP uri
ext-field = field-name fs SP unstructured
field-name = <as per section 3.6.8 of {{RFC5322}}>
unstructured = <as per section 3.2.5 of {{RFC5322}}>
"ext-field" refers to extension fields, which are discussed in
Section 4.4
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
6. Security considerations
Organizations creating security.txt files will need to consider
several security-related issues. These include exposure to sensitive
information and attacks where limited access to a server could grant
the ability to modify the contents of the security.txt file or affect
how it is served. Organizations SHOULD also monitor their
security.txt files regularly to detect tampering. Organizations
SHOULD also ensure that any resources such as web pages, email
addresses and telephone numbers references by a "security.txt" file
are kept current, are accessible and controlled by the organization,
and are kept secure.
To ensure the authenticity of the security.txt file, organizations
SHOULD sign the file and include the signature using the "Signature"
directive (Section 3.4.7). As stated in Section 3.4.3 and
Section 3.4.7, both encryption keys and external signature files MUST
be loaded over HTTPS.
Websites SHOULD reserve the security.txt namespace to ensure no
third-party can create a page with the "security.txt" name.
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 [RFC5785]):
URI suffix: security.txt
URI suffix: security.txt.sig
Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): this document
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.
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the
"Expert Review" guidelines as described in section 4.5 of [RFC8126].
Any new field thus registered is considered optional by this
specification unless a new version of this specification is
published.
New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:
1. Name of the field being registered or updated
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
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
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 January 16, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
Field Name: Acknowledgments
Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Contact
Description: contact information to use for reporting security issues
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Encryption
Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Hiring
Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Permission
Description: indicates that researchers MUST NOT do any testing
Multiple Appearances: No
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Policy
Description: link to security policy page
Multiple Appearances: Yes
Published in: this document
Status: current
Field Name: Signature
Description: signature used to verify the authenticity of the file
Multiple Appearances: No
Published in: this document
Status: current
8. Contributors
The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the
development of this document by Tom Hudson, Joel Margolis, Jobert
Abma, Gerben Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Justin Calmus, and Casey
Ellis.
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by
multiple members of IETF's SAAG and SEC-DISPATCH 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1945>.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and
Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2142>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2196] Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2196>.
[RFC2350] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer
Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2350>.
[RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2606>.
[RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider
Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3013>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7485>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Foudil & Shafranovich Expires January 16, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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 January 16, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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 fall back 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 January 16, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft A Method for Web Security Policies July 2018
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 January 16, 2019 [Page 19]
