Listen to this Post
Introduction:
The relationship between security researchers and corporate bug bounty programs is built on a foundation of mutual trust and clear communication. However, a recent public complaint by researcher Muhammad Qasim against Scale AI highlights a growing fracture in this ecosystem. After reporting multiple security vulnerabilities on the outlier.ai domain in November 2025, Qasim claims the issues were “silently fixed” by Scale AI’s team without any acknowledgment, reward, or response—even after CC’ing their product security lead. This incident underscores the ethical and operational dilemmas facing ethical hackers when companies prioritize secrecy over researcher recognition.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the ethical and legal frameworks governing responsible vulnerability disclosure.
- Learn how to verify and document vulnerabilities to protect your findings as a researcher.
- Master the technical steps for reporting bugs effectively and securing proof of submission.
You Should Know:
- The Anatomy of a Silent Patch: What Happened with Scale AI
Muhammad Qasim, a seasoned ethical hacker and founder of FusionSecurity, took to LinkedIn to expose what he perceives as unethical behavior by Scale AI. According to his post, he submitted multiple security issues under their bug bounty program in November 2025 targeting the outlier.ai domain. While the vulnerabilities were eventually fixed, the company allegedly failed to reply to his reports or acknowledge his contributions, even after directly messaging the product security lead. This practice, often referred to as “silent patching,” leaves researchers without credit or compensation, discouraging future participation in the program. -
Step‑by‑Step Guide: How to Properly Document and Report a Vulnerability
To protect yourself from being ignored, follow a strict documentation and reporting protocol:
Step 1: Verify the Scope
- Check the program’s scope file or policy page to ensure your target (e.g., outlier.ai) is in scope.
- Use command-line tools to map the subdomains and verify ownership:
Linux/macOS dig outlier.ai whois outlier.ai Windows (PowerShell) Resolve-DnsName outlier.ai
Step 2: Capture Proof-of-Concept (PoC)
- Record your exploitation steps using screen recording software or terminal logging.
- Save HTTP request/response pairs using Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP.
- Export logs:
Linux: Save terminal session script -f vulnerability_proof.txt Run your exploit commands here exit
Step 3: Create a Timestamped Report
- Include the date, time, and a unique hash of your findings.
- Generate a SHA-256 hash of your PoC files to prove existence before disclosure:
sha256sum exploit_poc.txt > proof.hash Windows certutil -hashfile exploit_poc.txt SHA256 > proof.hash
3. Navigating Bug Bounty Platforms and Communication Channels
When reporting through platforms like HackerOne or Bugcrowd, always use the official channel. However, if reporting directly (as Qasim did), ensure you:
- Use the company’s official security contact email (often security@domain or [email protected]).
- Encrypt your communication using GPG if they provide a public key.
- Request a read receipt or delivery confirmation.
- Follow up after 7–14 days if no response, referencing your original ticket ID.
Command to send encrypted email via command line (Linux):
gpg --import company_public_key.asc gpg --encrypt --recipient [email protected] report.txt mail -s "Vulnerability Report: []" -a report.txt.gpg [email protected]
- What to Do When You Get Ghosted: Escalation Strategies
If a company silently patches your finding without response:
- Check if the bug bounty platform has a mediation or dispute resolution process.
- Post a responsible, factual public disclosure after a reasonable waiting period (typically 90–120 days).
- Use GitHub Gists or personal blogs to publish the vulnerability details without exposing active users.
- Tag relevant company officials on platforms like LinkedIn (as Qasim did) but remain professional.
5. Tools and Commands for Validating Fixed Vulnerabilities
Once a patch is deployed, you can ethically verify that the fix is effective without re-exploiting the system:
Using Nmap to check for open services before and after:
nmap -sV -p- outlier.ai -oN pre_patch_scan.txt After patch nmap -sV -p- outlier.ai -oN post_patch_scan.txt diff pre_patch_scan.txt post_patch_scan.txt
Checking HTTP header changes with cURL:
curl -I https://outlier.ai -o headers_before.txt Compare with after curl -I https://outlier.ai -o headers_after.txt diff headers_before.txt headers_after.txt
6. Legal Protections and Ethical Considerations for Researchers
Researchers must navigate laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in the U.S. or similar laws globally. To stay protected:
- Always operate within the scope defined by the program.
- Never access or modify data belonging to other users.
- Keep detailed logs of all interactions with the company’s systems.
- If threatened, consult with legal counsel and present your documented proof of authorized testing.
- API Security Testing: Common Flaws in AI Domains
Given that outlier.ai is an AI-related domain, API security is critical. Common vulnerabilities include:
- Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA): Test by replacing IDs in API requests.
Example using curl to test IDOR curl -X GET https://api.outlier.ai/v1/user/1234 -H "Authorization: Bearer [bash]" Try with 1235
- Mass Assignment: Look for parameters that shouldn’t be user-modifiable.
- Rate Limiting Issues: Use tools like ffuf to fuzz endpoints:
ffuf -w /usr/share/wordlists/common.txt -u https://outlier.ai/FUZZ -p 0.1
What Undercode Say:
- Key Takeaway 1: Bug bounty programs are only as good as their responsiveness. Silent patching erodes trust and may push researchers toward full disclosure, increasing risk for the company.
- Key Takeaway 2: Researchers must always document their findings meticulously, including timestamps and hashes, to protect against non‑acknowledgment and potential legal challenges.
This incident with Scale AI serves as a cautionary tale for both companies and researchers. While companies fear public disclosure of vulnerabilities, ignoring ethical researchers damages their reputation and discourages the very community that helps secure their platforms. For researchers, the lesson is to treat every submission as a legal and professional transaction, retaining proof and following up persistently. The cybersecurity ecosystem relies on reciprocity; when that breaks down, everyone loses.
Prediction:
In the coming months, we will likely see increased regulatory scrutiny of bug bounty programs, possibly mandating minimum response times and public acknowledgment policies. Companies like Scale AI may face reputational damage that affects their talent acquisition and partnership opportunities, prompting a shift toward more transparent vulnerability disclosure frameworks. Additionally, researchers may begin forming collectives to blacklist companies known for silent patching, forcing the industry to adopt standardized ethical guidelines.
▶️ Related Video (78% Match):
🎯Let’s Practice For Free:
IT/Security Reporter URL:
Reported By: Muhammad Qasiim – Hackers Feeds
Extra Hub: Undercode MoN
Basic Verification: Pass ✅
