重访:2022年的流行与一致性分析

Tobias Hilbig, Thomas Geras, Erwin Kupris, T. Schreck
{"title":"重访:2022年的流行与一致性分析","authors":"Tobias Hilbig, Thomas Geras, Erwin Kupris, T. Schreck","doi":"10.1145/3609234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Determining the correct contact person for a particular system or organization is challenging in today’s Internet architecture. However, there are various stakeholders who will need to have such information, such as national security teams, security researchers, or Internet service providers, among others. To address this problem, RFC 9116, or better known as “security.txt,” was developed. If implemented correctly, then it can help these stakeholders in finding contact information to be used to notify an organization of any security issues. Further, there is another proposal called “dnssecuritytxt,” which uses DNS records for this purpose. In this research article, we evaluated the prevalence of websites that have implemented security.txt and their conformity with the standard. Through a longitudinal analysis of the top one million websites, we investigated the adoption and usage of this standard among organizations. Our results show that the overall adoption of security.txt remains low, especially among less popular websites. To drive its acceptance among organizations, security researchers, and developers, we derived several recommendations, including partnerships with vendors of browsers and content management systems.","PeriodicalId":202552,"journal":{"name":"Digital Threats: Research and Practice","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"security.txt Revisited: Analysis of Prevalence and Conformity in 2022\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Hilbig, Thomas Geras, Erwin Kupris, T. Schreck\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3609234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Determining the correct contact person for a particular system or organization is challenging in today’s Internet architecture. However, there are various stakeholders who will need to have such information, such as national security teams, security researchers, or Internet service providers, among others. To address this problem, RFC 9116, or better known as “security.txt,” was developed. If implemented correctly, then it can help these stakeholders in finding contact information to be used to notify an organization of any security issues. Further, there is another proposal called “dnssecuritytxt,” which uses DNS records for this purpose. In this research article, we evaluated the prevalence of websites that have implemented security.txt and their conformity with the standard. Through a longitudinal analysis of the top one million websites, we investigated the adoption and usage of this standard among organizations. Our results show that the overall adoption of security.txt remains low, especially among less popular websites. To drive its acceptance among organizations, security researchers, and developers, we derived several recommendations, including partnerships with vendors of browsers and content management systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202552,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digital Threats: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digital Threats: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3609234\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Threats: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3609234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当今的Internet架构中,为特定系统或组织确定正确的联系人是一项挑战。然而,有各种各样的利益相关者需要这些信息,例如国家安全团队、安全研究人员或互联网服务提供商等。为了解决这个问题,开发了RFC 9116,或者更广为人知的“security.txt”。如果实现正确,那么它可以帮助这些涉众找到联系信息,用于通知组织任何安全问题。此外,还有另一个名为“dnssecuritytxt”的建议,该建议将DNS记录用于此目的。在这篇研究文章中,我们评估了实施security.txt的网站的流行程度及其与标准的一致性。通过对排名前100万个网站的纵向分析,我们调查了组织对该标准的采用和使用情况。我们的研究结果显示,security.txt的总体使用率仍然很低,尤其是在不太受欢迎的网站中。为了推动组织、安全研究人员和开发人员接受它,我们提出了一些建议,包括与浏览器和内容管理系统供应商合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
security.txt Revisited: Analysis of Prevalence and Conformity in 2022
Determining the correct contact person for a particular system or organization is challenging in today’s Internet architecture. However, there are various stakeholders who will need to have such information, such as national security teams, security researchers, or Internet service providers, among others. To address this problem, RFC 9116, or better known as “security.txt,” was developed. If implemented correctly, then it can help these stakeholders in finding contact information to be used to notify an organization of any security issues. Further, there is another proposal called “dnssecuritytxt,” which uses DNS records for this purpose. In this research article, we evaluated the prevalence of websites that have implemented security.txt and their conformity with the standard. Through a longitudinal analysis of the top one million websites, we investigated the adoption and usage of this standard among organizations. Our results show that the overall adoption of security.txt remains low, especially among less popular websites. To drive its acceptance among organizations, security researchers, and developers, we derived several recommendations, including partnerships with vendors of browsers and content management systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causal Inconsistencies are Normal in Windows Memory Dumps (too) InvesTEE: A TEE-supported Framework for Lawful Remote Forensic Investigations Does Cyber Insurance promote Cyber Security Best Practice? An Analysis based on Insurance Application Forms Unveiling Cyber Threat Actors: A Hybrid Deep Learning Approach for Behavior-based Attribution A Framework for Enhancing Social Media Misinformation Detection with Topical-Tactics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1