[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                          E. Foudil
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                           Y. Shafranovich
Expires: July 16, 2019                          Nightwatch Cybersecurity
                                                        January 12, 2019


                   A Method for Web Security Policies
                      draft-foudil-securitytxt-05

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 July 16, 2019.

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 16, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 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 and Prior Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Separate Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Digital signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.5.1.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.5.2.  Canonical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Web-based services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Filesystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Internal hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  File Format Description and ABNF Grammar  . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Well-Known URIs registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Registry for security.txt Header Fields . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Note to Readers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix B.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.1.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-00 . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.2.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-01 . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.3.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-02 . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.4.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-03 . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.5.  Since draft-foudil-securitytxt-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20





Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Motivation and Prior Work

   Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable
   to report security vulnerabilities to organizations 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 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 more
   extensible way for organizations to communicate information about
   their security disclosure policies, which is not limited to email and
   also allows for additional features such as encryption.  This format
   is designed to help assist with the security disclosure process by
   making it easier for organizations to designate the preferred steps
   for researchers to take when trying to reach out to them with
   security vulnerabilities.

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 July 16, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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") [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 file 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], and it is
   RECOMMENDED that this file 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 MUST be 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 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.







Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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
   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 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.  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.

   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).




Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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 allows you to link to a page where security
   researchers are recognized for their reports.  The page being linked
   to SHOULD list individuals or organizations that reported security
   vulnerabilities and worked with you to remediate the issue.
   Organizations SHOULD be careful to limit the vulnerability
   information being published in order to prevent future attacks.

   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".

   This directive MUST NOT appear more than once.

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





Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


3.5.3.  Contact

   This directive allows you to provide 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
   RECOMMENDED that it begins 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].

   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

3.5.4.  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 is RECOMMENDED
   to always use "https://" URLs (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:



Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   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 is RECOMMENDED to always use "https://" URLs (as per section 2.7.2
   of [RFC7230]).

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

3.5.6.  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 is
   RECOMMENDED to always use "https://" URLs (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:

   Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr








Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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 v1

   [signature]
   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4.  Location of the security.txt file











Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


                             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".

   Example file system:

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








Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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].

   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 (canonical-field eol) (lang-field eol) *line

   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)



Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   ack-field        = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri

   canonical-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] 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

   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 digitally sign this file with OpenPGP as per Section 3.4 and
   SHOULD also use the "Canonical" directive as per Section 3.5.2.  As
   stated in Section 3.5.4, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption keys be
   loaded over HTTPS (as per section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).




Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   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

   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.

   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



Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   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

   Field Name: Canonical
   Description: canonical URL for this file
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Published in: this document
   Status: current

   Field Name: Contact
   Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities
   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: Policy
   Description: link to security policy page
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Published in: this document
   Status: current

   Field Name: Preferred-Languages
   Description: list of preferred languages for security reports
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Published in: this document
   Status: current





Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 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, Eduardo Vela and
   Krzysztof Kotowicz.

   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>.

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3966]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
              RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3966>.







Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC4880]  Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R.
              Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6068]  Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
              URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [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>.






Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   [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>.

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 16, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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)

   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 16, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


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

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

   o  Addressing IETF feedback (#118)

   o  Case sensitivity clarification (#127)

   o  Syntax fixes (#133, #135 and #136)



Foudil & Shafranovich     Expires July 16, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     A Method for Web Security Policies       January 2019


   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

   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 16, 2019                [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/