bwbroersma
commented
2 months ago Example report with ✅ security.txt and no :information_source: informational hint about using legacy: https://internet.nl/site/legacy-sectxt.broersma.com/2965249/#siteappsecpriv
In this case there only is content on the legacy location /security.txt (https://legacy-sectxt.broersma.com/security.txt) while /.well-known/security.txt is a 404 (https://legacy-sectxt.broersma.com/.well-known/security.txt).
Related:
-
This was discussed earlier in https://github.com/internetstandards/Internet.nl/issues/1084#issuecomment-1883950208: RFC 9116 states:
3. Location of the security.txt File
For web-based services, organizations MUST place the "security.txt" file under the "/.well-known/" path, e.g., https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt as per [RFC8615] of a domain name or IP address. 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.
So the legacy location MUST be ignored it's also found in "/.well-known/", therefore I don't think we should do compares (also quite complex, the content could also be 'the same' but ordered differently). I would tend to agree a legacy location could give an ℹ️ informational.
janwillemstegink
https://en.internet.nl/site/metaregistrar.com/2964873/
https://www.hostingtool.nl/server_headers/index.php?url=metaregistrar.com