> This is well known to be a huge no-no in the security industry. I see a lot of rage here from software engineers - look at the responses from actual security

> This is well known to be a huge no-no in the security industry. I see a lot of rage here from software engineers - look at the responses from actual security folks in this thread, and ask your infosec friends... The problem is that on the one side you have security professionals who do this full time. They build up a background of implicit knowledge through extensive interaction with other security professionals, via training, mentoring, team activities, etc. On the other side you have folks like the guy who found this vulnerability -- don't specialize in security, basically moonlighting / hobby, not necessarily connected to other security professionals or even other hobbyists. They won't have the same kind of implicit knowledge. When someone from the first category communicates with someone from the second category, the communication can break down. That's what happened here. Offering a million dollar bounty makes this kind of communication problem more likely -- a potential million-dollar payout catches the interest of people who have spare time and encourage them to pick this as the thing they do on the side. And further, encourages them to try anything and everything you don't explicitly forbid in by giving them hope that if they just try hard enough, they'll be able to turn what initially looks like a ho-hum two-year-old Ruby exploit into a million-dollar payday.