Follow-up from "Rename generic security report types"

The following discussion from !142843 (merged) should be addressed:

• @kpalchyk started a discussion: (+1 comment)

  Was reviewing an MR, that touches relevant specs. And, I think, we missed to rename those specs in this MR. I'll create a small follow-up for that rename.

  meh, I wish we had specs right next to the files they test.