Running a bug bounty is not a suicide pact. A team had to convince a finance group that it was valuable to give money away to people who might be assholes. Bo

Running a bug bounty is not a suicide pact. A team had to convince a finance group that it was valuable to give money away to people who might be assholes. Bounty hunters are not a community- but if you are a bounty hunter, you should understand that many of your peers are total assholes. The company that wants to pay you a reward has to figure out if you are going to make them regret offering you a reward. There are 4 categories of reporters: great, good, shit and crazy. Again- if you are a reporter, you should be trying to make it easy for the team to distinguish you in one of the first two categories by being simply being polite & respectful. I will take a side- it's Facebook. Dumping data is the end of the Proof of Concept. Trying to determine if there is more data you can access through a single vulnerability chain is over the line. Boats sink. The engineers know it. If you sink a boat in order to prove the boat had a hole, you will not get your payout. And one final thought- In my experience, bounty hunters almost never realize the full consequences of a vulnerability that receives a reward. Most of the time, the "Bad thing" that they identify is just the tip of the iceberg. The choices of the researcher reflect inexperience and immaturity. The researcher has a significant misunderstanding about what is happening in the bug bounty marketplace. I think they need to apologize if they want a future in the infosec world. Publishing this blog post was a huge error. Going to the journalist was another huge error. I don't see how this person could ever be considered employable by a reputable company.