Researchers' Litmus: Good Faith or Goodbye

Introduction

Bug bounty programs solved a standing problem where researchers could not effectively notify organizations of security concerns. They are a great way in allowing security researchers to spot and report vulnerabilities. There are a few that even offering rewards for findings. Platforms like HackerOne, Bugcrowd, and Open Bug Bounty are a few which host a wide range of these programs, effectively connecting researchers with companies seeking to strengthen their cybersecurity.

Sure, while these programs are designed with good intentions, sound great on paper, but whether they actually work comes down to not only on the technical findings, but also on how a company engages with security researchers. Just as companies evaluate job candidates through trial tasks before hiring, researchers assess bounty programs before committing their time and expertise.

In this article, I'm going to go through how a security researcher can strategically navigate bug bounty programs to maximize impact, avoid wasted effort, and prevent burnout. Along the way, I will too get into something that doesn't get said out loud enough: real, lasting impact almost always comes down to trust and straight-up good-faith honest communication. When that's there, everyone wins: the researcher gets treated fairly, and the company's product ends up way more secure - ultimately strengthening an organization's security posture.

Value of Time in Bounty Research

Like many people, time is a precious and finite resource and the same goes for security researchers and by engaging with a poorly managed bug bounty program - it can result in hours of unrewarded effort, yielding little recognition or compensation. To mitigate this, a researcher should begin with low-effort, low-severity, or proof-of-concept (PoC) submissions. These submissions serve as a kind of litmus test - gauging a potential program's responsiveness, transparency, and fairness of a program without requiring much time investment.

Take this simple reflected XSS '?search=<script>alert('pwn3d')</script>' that when injected into the request, the page simply echoes it back into the HTML without sanitizing it, causing the code to execute in the browser. When one of these is found, it is time to send it in as a harmless PoC (alert('hello world') or whatever) that clearly proves the bug but doesn't hurt. Then it is time to see what happens. Does the company reply at all? Do they explain why they think it's invalid (or valid)? Do they pay out fairly, or at least say thanks in a meaningful way?

That first report is basically a litmus test. If they handle it professionally and transparently, it is time to keep digging. If they play games - just move on - plenty of other programs out there. This strategic, non-deceptive approach helps determine if deeper engagement is worthwhile.

Whether organizations, companies, or even individuals like it or not, security researchers engage in this practice. Probing allows assessing whether an organization is transparent, timely, and respectful. These factors heavily influence whether to submit more serious vulnerabilities, continue to seek out vulnerabilities, or just move on to more promising targets, optimizing a limited finite resource - time - for programs that value their contributions.

This is unironically like the hiring process these same organizations use to evaluate a potential hire. Just as employers will scrutinize resumes, run skill assessments, and hold multiple rounds of interviews to see whether a candidate fits, security researchers probe to garner whether an organization is serious about their security posture and is commitment to security. In either case, the goal is simple - make informed decisions based on evidence of competence and alignment of values. Just as the hiring process for companies, for researchers, probing is not merely a technical exercise – it is a strategic one – aimed at identifying who is serious about improving their security posture and those that view researchers as allies - rather than adversaries.

The Psychological Fallout

A prevalent myth that rebuffing or resisting a security researcher's findings will push researchers to exert greater effort within the given structure – essentially to "try harder" in the confines of the established framework. But in the real world, getting brushed off, gaslit, ignored, or (worst case) threatened absolutely kills any trust that was there. Researchers don't stick around after that.

This reaction is not merely emotional but is instead deeply rooted in behavioral psychology. According to Robert Cialdini's principle of reciprocity, individuals respond positively to respect and acknowledgment, not dismissal. Think about it, when a researcher invests days or even weeks into probing, documenting and analyzing vulnerabilities, denial not only feels unjust, but demoralizing and it signals that their contributions are undervalued, which erodes their sense of purpose and professional identity.

Far from fostering determination, it induces burnout and shifts their focus to entities that foster genuine partnership. This pattern mirrors ostracism in the workplace, where staff subjected to rejection or isolation suffer psychological strain that diminishes their loyalty to their roles and organization. For security researchers, this translates to detachment and reduced output, rather than bolstered drive or fortitude. Much like employees who are committed to their employer's prosperity, these researchers contribute to organizational protection by uncovering flaws - yet encountering rejection typically yields the reverse of the desired outcome (Rizvi & Altaf, 2025).

The Power of Chaining

Another reason companies should be paying attention to low-level vulnerabilities, other than the moral responsibility, is that while it alone doesn't cause much harm, combining it with others can quickly turn it into a more serious security vulnerability. For example, the PACMAN exploit targeting Apple M1 chips, demonstrates how a low-severity issue, when chained with others, can morph into a serious threat.

Another example can be seen in bug bounty reports, where low-severity issues such as open redirects or information leaks are combined to produce serious impacts, including account takeovers or data exfiltration. For example, a medium article written by Mark Roy shows that a Self-XSS combined with another vulnerability had led to a full account takeover. In both these, it can be seen how attackers can and will take advantage of exploit chains, making it essential for organizations to fix even minor bugs to disrupt potential attack paths.

Incentives

Following the findings of the USENIX study, incentives for researchers play a significant role in participating in bug bounty programs, followed by learning new skills or techniques, with enjoyment of the challenge ranking last. Significant challenges highlighted in this report too, include poor responsiveness from program managers and dissatisfaction with responses, such as severity downgrades, disputes over validity or duplicates, and lower-than-expected payouts.

Simply put, fair evaluation of PoCs and incentives motivates, leading to the discovery of high-severity issues that might otherwise go unreported. When researchers see their initial efforts rewarded, they are more willing to commit. And while non-monetary incentives such as Hall of Fame mentions or branded merchandise rank lower as motivators for security researchers, they can help build loyalty and recognition, as well as enhance a researcher's portfolio and standing within the community, making them more appealing to beginners.

For example, although OpenBugBounty does not offer monetary rewards and functions as more of an open platform for reporting vulnerabilities - unlike more structured and targeted programs such as HackerOne - it provides instead a profile which shows off a researcher's badges, ranking, reviews and even a certificate. For some security researchers, such as beginners, this is enough to motivate them, as it can help them prove their skills, establish credibility within the security research community and even potentially leading to job opportunities. On the other hand, platforms such as HackerOne and Bugcrowd typically attract researchers who are interested in monetary rewards. It's not one or the other, though - just different setups suiting different folks and keep the ecosystem humming in an effort to push better security overall.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, bug bounty programs have the potential to be a powerful alliance between security researchers and organizations that turn independent hunting into a collaborative defense which genuinely hardens systems against real threats. Though, the real effectiveness comes down to far more than just the technical side - it's about building trust through transparent handling of initial PoCs, recognizing the risks of exploit chaining, and aligning incentives in a way that respects researchers' time and effort.

For researchers, the key takeaway is simply that your time is a finite resource and using low-effort submissions as a genuine litmus test for a program's responsiveness and fairness is a legitimate strategy worth using. If the response shows good faith - timely communication, reasonable payouts or recognition, and acknowledgment - it's worth further investigation. If not, move on, as there are plenty of programs out there, and focusing on the ones that value partnership will lead to greater impact, better rewards, and less burnout.

For organizations, these programs are not just a checkbox for "doing security." Handling reports professionally and fairly - directly influences the quality and quantity of vulnerabilities you will uncover. Dismiss or undervalue early contributions, and you risk driving away the talent that could find your critical vulnerabilities. By getting it right, with consistent respect and reciprocity, you will foster ongoing relationships that strengthen your security posture far beyond what internal teams alone could achieve.

At their best, bug bounty programs are that of a true partnership/relationship, much like the hiring analogy, where both sides are evaluating each other's actions – not just words or the ink on paper. When trust and open, good-faith communication are prioritized, everyone benefits. Researchers feel recognized and motivated, companies gain deeper and more effective security insights, and the overall ecosystem sees fewer exploits. Though challenging, investing in mutual respect is what separates mediocre programs from those that truly make a meaningful impact.