INالبحث والتدريب
Inria
Research in digital science and technology.
البوابة السيبرانية الدولية / DIRECTORY
عالم من الخبرات.
مؤسسات عامة وفرق استجابة وشركات وأبحاث. اعثر على المصادر المناسبة لبلدك واحتياجاتك.
توزيع ملفات FIRST · 883
ملفات في لقطة البيانات : 883 ·
- Government, Private and Public sectors
252 / 883 252 - Other commercial
207 / 883 207 - Industrial sector
95 / 883 95 - Financial sector
94 / 883 94 - ICT vendor customer base
57 / 883 57 - القطاع غير مذكور
50 / 883 50 - Government & military
46 / 883 46 - Research & education
45 / 883 45 - ISP customer base
37 / 883 37
لا يحدّد بلد الملف وقطاعه نطاق التدخل. تحقّق من الشروط في الملف الرسمي. FIRST ↗
BSمؤسسات
BSI
German Federal Office for Information Security.
CIمؤسسات
CISA
Infrastructure security, advisories and exploited vulnerabilities.
NIمؤسسات
NIST
Risk frameworks, research and technical standards.
الهوية: العوامل والجلسات والاسترداد
References use NIST SP 800-63B-4, finalised in July 2025, and WebAuthn Level 3, a W3C Recommendation since 25 August 2026. AALs describe authentication transactions rather than product scores or certifications earned by ticking this table. Application depends on service scope and risk assessment.
These values are not cookie lifetimes to copy blindly. NIST distinguishes overall and inactivity limits and then defines reauthentication rules. Applications may choose shorter periods based on risk. IAL concerns identity proofing and FAL federation: AAL does not replace either dimension.
- NIST SP 800-63B-4 · final publication ·
- NIST · Authentication Assurance Levels ·
- NIST · Authenticators and password requirements ·
- NIST · Authenticator Event Management ·
- NIST · Session Management ·
- NIST · Syncable Authenticators ·
Open the authenticator and recovery comparison →
Sources consulted on
CYمؤسسات
Cyber Security Agency of Singapore
National cybersecurity publications and resources.
UNالبحث والتدريب
UNIDIR
Research on disarmament, security and technology.
IEالمجتمعات والمعايير
IETF
Open Internet protocol standards.
أمن البريد: الهوية والمواءمة والنقل
RFC 9989, published in May 2026, replaces RFC 7489 and RFC 9091. Aggregate and failure reporting are separated into RFC 9990 and RFC 9991.
Publication of an RFC does not show that every provider already implements that version. Check documentation, observed results and exceptions in your own streams. These examples are educational and provide no ready-to-deploy DNS record.
- SPF · RFC 7208 ·
- DKIM · RFC 6376 ·
- DKIM cryptography · RFC 8301 ·
- DMARC · RFC 9989 ·
- DMARC aggregate reports · RFC 9990 ·
- DMARC failure reports · RFC 9991 ·
- MTA-STS · RFC 8461 ·
- SMTP TLS Reporting · RFC 8460 ·
- DANE for SMTP · RFC 7672 ·
- ARC · RFC 8617 ·
Open the comparison and DMARC simulator →
References and status checked on
ETag وتخزين HTTP المؤقت والتعديلات المتزامنة
An ETag is an opaque validator for the selected representation. It compares versions; it is neither authorisation nor an access token, and it need not be a file hash. Personalised responses require separate decisions about access, cache selection and HTTP conditions.
If-Match requires strong comparison: neither tag may start with W/. If-None-Match uses weak comparison, matching the opaque values regardless of W/. Values remain case-sensitive. The * wildcard checks representation existence here, not a particular version.
Explore ETag comparisons and the simulator →
Primary references and limits
The standards define HTTP conditions and caching. The ten cases, laboratory and two-client walkthrough are original illustrations. Displayed results are calculated by this local model, not measurements of this site or your infrastructure.
- IETF · RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics · June 2022 · STD 97
§8.8.3.2; §13.1.1–13.1.2; §13.2; §15.3.5; §15.4.5 - IETF · RFC 9111 — HTTP Caching · June 2022 · STD 98
§4.1; §4.3; §5.2.2.4–5.2.2.5; §5.2.2.7 - IETF · RFC 6585 — Additional HTTP Status Codes · April 2012 · Standards Track
§3 · 428 Precondition Required
References reviewed
Retry-After: الانتظار والميزانية وقرار الإعادة
A waiting period answers “when?”, not “may this operation be repeated?”. Before retrying, identify the intended effect, read the provider contract and bound total work. An error status or a lost response does not prove that no earlier attempt produced an effect.
Durations are seconds. Absolute dates need an explicit clock policy; calculations here assume the stated accurate clock. Past dates become zero in this model without permitting an immediate loop. Integer syntax alone does not define a client’s numeric limits.
Explore Retry-After and the retry model →
Primary sources and limits
- IETF · RFC 9110 — Retry-After et idempotence HTTP · June 2022 · STD 97
§5.6.7; §9.2.2; §10.2.3; §15.6.4 - IETF · RFC 6585 — 429 Too Many Requests · April 2012 · Standards Track
§4
References reviewed
security.txt والإفصاح
Cyber exposure also includes the ability to receive a useful report. A security.txt file can make the contact discoverable, but its presence alone establishes neither channel availability nor case follow-through.
Read the security.txt reference and disclosure cases →
Primary sources and scope
- IETF · RFC 9116 · security.txt · Informational · 2022-04
§2.3–2.5, §3–3.1, §4, §5.1–5.7
Sources checked on
Robots.txt: الزحف والفهرسة والأدلة
Discovering a URL, allowing crawling, indexing content and citing a source are separate stages. A 200 response and an Allow rule do not establish that a search engine selected the page. This reference shows which evidence belongs to each stage.
The three files and twelve requests below are fictional. IndexBot, PreviewBot and OtherBot do not identify real services. Examples use ASCII prefixes and an exact $ ending, without encoding, path wildcards, redirects or cache handling. Filters organise explained outcomes; they neither test a domain nor modify this site’s robots.txt.
Review the twelve robots.txt cases →
Primary sources and scope
REP rules come from RFC 9309; Google-specific details are attributed to its own documentation. Examples and the diagram are educational. Filtering performs no crawling and the tables contain no client results.
- IETF · RFC 9309 — Robots Exclusion Protocol · September 2022 · Standards Track
§2.2.1–2.2.3; §2.3–2.5; §3 - Google · Interprétation de robots.txt / robots.txt interpretation · Documentation consultée / accessed 2026-10-22
Group selection; path matching; HTTP errors and caching - Google Search Central · Block indexing with noindex · Documentation consultée / accessed 2026-10-22
Crawler access required to observe noindex - Google Search Central · Canonical URLs · Documentation consultée / accessed 2026-10-22
Signals, best practices and sitemap inclusion
References reviewed
ETالمجتمعات والمعايير
ETSI
Technical standards and quantum-safe cryptography.
ARالبحث والتدريب
arXiv
Scientific preprints; peer review is not guaranteed.
CLالقطاع الخاص
Cloudflare
Networking, security and infrastructure analysis.
W3المجتمعات والمعايير
W3C · Web Accessibility Initiative
Standards, evaluation methods and web accessibility resources. Supports complete journey testing beyond automated checks.
GOالقطاع الخاص
Google · Search Central
Official documentation on crawling, indexing and AI features in Google Search. Does not guarantee rankings or citations.
ICالمجتمعات والمعايير
ICANN · Registration Data Lookup
Domain registration data lookup. Redacted data or a technical provider alone cannot establish control by an entity.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- RDAP is the registration data access protocol. ICANN Lookup provides access to available public registration data.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Keep the exact domain, consultation date and result. Distinguish registrar, technical service and the entity operating a website.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- Data may be redacted or limited. Domain information alone cannot attribute content or an operation to a person.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
IAالمجتمعات والمعايير
IANA · Protocol Registries
Internet protocol parameter registries and related references. Use to check codes and numbers against their standardised context.
MIالبحث والتدريب
MITRE · Common Weakness Enumeration
Name classes of software and hardware weakness.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- A CWE describes a weakness that can contribute to vulnerabilities. It does not represent a particular incident.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Connect the weakness to the observed mechanism: input, processing and missing control. Use it to fix the cause and plan regression tests.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- A keyword in a report alone does not establish the correct CWE classification.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
OAالمجتمعات والمعايير
OASIS · STIX 2.1
Describe threat intelligence through structured objects and relationships.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- STIX 2.1 is an OASIS Standard dated 10 June 2021. It defines objects, properties and JSON serialisation.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Keep identifiers, dates, provenance and relationships. Check that the recipient interprets the same object type and validity period.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- A syntactically valid object can still be stale, misattributed or weakly supported.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
مؤشرات STIX والمشاركة وفق TLP
Structured intelligence retains provenance and a version history. For an actionable OSINT note, separate collected facts, the producer’s assertion and the local conclusion, then state what still needs confirmation.
Version note: at review time the OASIS latest-stage URL points to a document dated 2 April 2025 titled STIX 2.1 Errata 01, incorporating Draft 01. Its draft errata status is retained in the citation; it is not presented as a newly approved final version. Agree marking encodings with the recipient and check the edition actually used.
Read the STIX, observations and TLP sharing reference →
References and verification scope
- OASIS · STIX 2.1 · OASIS Standard · 2021-06-10
§3.2, §3.6, §4.7, §4.14, §5.2, §7.2 - OASIS · STIX 2.1 Errata 01 · Draft 01 · 2025-04-02 · OASIS Standard incorporating Draft 01 of Errata 01
Status / Citation format · draft status identified separately
Sources checked on
OAالمجتمعات والمعايير
OASIS · TAXII 2.1
Exchange threat intelligence through an application protocol.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- TAXII 2.1 is an OASIS Standard dated 10 June 2021. It includes service discovery and access to collections.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Test authentication, collection permissions, pagination and recovery after interruption. Record which objects were actually received and processed.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- TAXII transports data; it replaces neither the content model nor assessment of reliability.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
SPالمجتمعات والمعايير
SPDX · Specifications
Describe components and information in a software bill of materials.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- The official specifications page distinguishes SPDX 3.0 from earlier versions such as 2.3. Document version affects schema and tool compatibility.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Request format, version, build scope and component identifiers. Compare the bill of materials with the delivered artefact.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- A bill of materials alone proves neither vulnerability absence, dependency completeness nor compliance with every licence.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
OWالمجتمعات والمعايير
OWASP · CycloneDX
Exchange bills of materials and supply-chain information.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- The official overview dates specification 1.7 to 21 October 2025 and documents JSON, XML and Protobuf.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Check version, component references and dependency links. Retain the connection between the bill of materials, build and deployed product.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- Changing format does not fix missing components. A descriptive inventory and a vulnerability impact assessment answer different questions.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
W3المجتمعات والمعايير
W3C · WCAG 2.2
Evaluate accessibility criteria for web content.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation. Success criteria have A, AA and AAA levels.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Define tasks, pages and states, then combine inspection, keyboard, zoom and relevant assistive technology. Keep reproduction steps for barriers.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- An automated scanner does not establish conformity of a complete journey. Evaluation must cover interactive states and actual content.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
GOالقطاع الخاص
Google · Core Web Vitals
Distinguish loading, responsiveness and visual stability.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- Good thresholds are LCP ≤ 2.5 s, INP ≤ 200 ms and CLS ≤ 0.1 at the 75th percentile, segmented by mobile and desktop.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Separate field measurement from laboratory tests. Record period, URL, device, population and sample size before comparing changes.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- These thresholds are not measured results for this site. A good lab score alone does not establish visitor experience.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
GOالقطاع الخاص
Google · Structured data
Describe page contents through machine-readable markup.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- Structured data helps search engines understand content. Marked properties should correspond to information actually present on the page.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Choose a type matching the page and verify names, dates, relationships and sources. Check final rendering rather than only the template.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- Valid markup alone does not guarantee a rich result. It replaces neither the content nor feature-specific eligibility conditions.
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق
NIمؤسسات
NIST · Post-quantum cryptography
Identify standards relevant to cryptographic transition.
معلومات مرجعية
- بيانات أو معيار متحقق منه
- NIST distinguishes FIPS 203 for ML-KEM, FIPS 204 for ML-DSA and FIPS 205 for SLH-DSA. Key encapsulation and signatures are different functions.
- كيفية الاستخدام
- Inventory protocols, libraries, keys and dependencies. Ask which versions are actually implemented and test interoperability, performance and rollback.
- حدود يجب مراعاتها
- Having a standardised algorithm does not establish security of the complete integration or a universal migration deadline.
التشفير ما بعد الكمي: المقارنة قبل الانتقال →
تاريخ مراجعة الوثائق