Hunt for exploitable, bounty-worthy security issues in repositories. Focuses on remotely reachable vulnerabilities that qualify for real reports instead of noisy local-only findings. Use when hunting reportable, remotely reachable vulnerabilities in a repository.

Security Bounty Hunter Use this when the goal is practical vulnerability discovery for responsible disclosure or bounty submission, not a broad best practices review. When to Use Scanning a repository for exploitable vulnerabilities Preparing a Huntr, HackerOne, or similar bounty submission Triage where the question is "does this actually pay?" rather than "is this theoretically unsafe?" How It Works Bias toward remotely reachable, user controlled attack paths and throw away patterns that platforms routinely reject as informative or out of scope. In Scope Patterns These are the kinds of issues that consistently matter: Pattern CWE Typical impact SSRF through user controlled URLs CWE 918 internal network access, cloud metadata theft Auth bypass in middleware or API guards CWE 287 unauthorized account or data access Remote deserialization or upload to RCE paths CWE 502 code execution SQL injection in reachable endpoints CWE 89 data exfiltration, auth bypass, data destruction Command injection in request handlers CWE 78 code execution Path traversal in file serving paths CWE 22 arbitrary file read or write Auto triggered XSS CWE 79 session theft, admin compromise Skip These These are usually low signal or out of bounty scope unless the program says otherwise: Local only pickle.loads , torch.load , or equivalent with no remote path eval() or exec() in CLI only tooling shell=True on fully hardcoded commands Missing security headers by themselves Generic rate limiting complaints without exploit impact Self XSS requiring the victim to paste code manually CI/CD injection that is not part of the target program scope Demo, example, or test only code Workflow 1. Check scope first: program rules, SECURITY.md, disclosure channel, and exclusions. 2. Find real entrypoints: HTTP handlers, uploads, background jobs, webhooks, parsers, and integration endpoints. 3. Run static tooling where it helps, but treat it as triage input only. 4. Read the real code path end to end. 5. Prove user control reaches a meaningful sink. 6. Confirm exploitability and impact with the smallest safe PoC possible. 7. Check for duplicates before drafting a report. Example Triage Loop Then manually filter: drop tests, demos, fixtures, vendored code drop local only or non reachable paths keep only findings with a clear network or user controlled route Report Structure Quality Gate Before submitting: The code path is reachable from a real user or network boundary The input is genuinely user controlled The sink is meaningful and exploitable The PoC works The issue is not already covered by an advisory, CVE, or open ticket The target is actually in scope for the bounty program

security-bounty-hunter