TRIAGE & VALIDATION

One wrong answer = STOP. Kill it. Move on.

> "N/A hurts your validity ratio. Informative is neutral. Only submit what passes all 7 questions."

THE 7-QUESTION GATE

Ask IN ORDER. One wrong answer = STOP immediately.

Q1: Can an attacker use this RIGHT NOW, step by step?

Complete this template:

1. Setup:   I need [own account / another user's ID / no account]
2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body — copy-paste ready]
3. Result:  I can [read / modify / delete] [exact data shown in response]
4. Impact:  The real-world consequence is [account takeover / PII read / money stolen]
5. Cost:    Time: [X minutes], Capital: [$0 / $X subscription required]

If you CANNOT write step 2 as a real HTTP request → KILL IT.

Q2: Is the impact on the program's accepted impact list?

Go to the program page. Find "Vulnerability Types" or "Out of Scope."

Common tiers:

• Critical: Any-user ATO without interaction, RCE, SQLi with data exfil, admin auth bypass
• High: Mass PII exfil, privilege escalation, internal SSRF with data, stored XSS all users
• Medium: IDOR on specific user non-critical data, XSS on sensitive page requiring click
• Low: Non-sensitive info disclosure, clickjacking with PoC

If your bug maps to a listed exclusion → KILL IT.

Q3: Is the root cause in an in-scope asset?

Confirm:

• Vulnerable domain is on the in-scope list (not *.internal.target.com)
• It's a production asset (not staging/dev unless explicitly in scope)
• It's not a third-party service the company just uses (not Stripe, Salesforce, Google Auth)

If out-of-scope → KILL IT.

Q4: Does it require privileged access that an attacker can't realistically get?

• "Admin can do X" = centralization risk = KILL IT (on 99% of programs)
• "Non-admin can do X that only admin should do" = valid
• "Requires physical access / MFA device" = usually invalid
• "Requires compromised victim account to work" = questionable, low severity at best

Q5: Is this already known or accepted behavior?

Search:

1. Program's HackerOne/Bugcrowd disclosed reports: Ctrl+F endpoint name + bug class
2. GitHub issues on target repo: is:issue label:security ENDPOINT_NAME
3. Changelog/CHANGELOG.md — does it mention this behavior?
4. API docs / design docs — is it documented as intended?

If acknowledged/design decision → KILL IT.

Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?

• XSS → show actual cookie theft or session hijack, not just alert(1) or alert(document.domain)
• SSRF → hit an internal endpoint that returns data, not just DNS ping
• SQLi → show actual data exfil from a real table, not just error message
• IDOR → show actual other-user's data in response, not just a 200 status code

If you can only show "technically possible" → DOWNGRADE severity, not kill.

Q7: Is this a known-invalid bug class?

Check the NEVER SUBMIT list below. If it's on this list without a chain → KILL IT.

Q8: Identity check — which session found this, and does it survive?

For any finding made under an authenticated hunt, record the answer to each:

1. Session ID:        [12-char BBHUNT_SESSION_ID hash from audit.jsonl]
2. Identity:          [low-priv user A / high-priv user B / API key / etc.]
3. Anonymous repro:   Does the same request work with NO auth header?
4. Cross-identity:    Does it work under session B with the same data scope?
5. Stale-cred repro:  Does a logged-out / expired session still get the data?

Why this matters:

• IDOR / BOLA: must work with session A reading session B's data — if it

only works with no auth, that's "missing auth" not IDOR (different bug, different severity).

• Priv-esc: must work with low-priv session reading high-priv data — if

both sessions can already see it, no bug.

• Auth bypass: must work without a valid session — if it stops working

when you log out, you've found a permissions issue, not a bypass.

• Always check both directions: a finding that only reproduces under

one identity is often a real, scoped permission boundary, not a vuln.

audit.jsonl entries are tagged with session_id. Re-run the request under each identity and confirm the bug holds before writing the report. This is the most common reason "confirmed IDOR" findings come back as N/A.

If you cannot answer the identity questions, treat the finding as unproven. Blank answers auto-fail on auth-related findings.

4 PRE-SUBMISSION GATES

Run in sequence. ALL 4 must PASS.

Gate 0: Reality Check (30 seconds)

[ ] Bug is REAL — confirmed with actual HTTP requests, not code reading alone
[ ] Bug is IN SCOPE — checked program scope page explicitly
[ ] Reproducible from scratch — can reproduce starting from fresh session
[ ] Evidence ready — screenshot, response body, or video

Gate 1: Impact Validation (2 minutes)

[ ] Can answer: "What can attacker DO that they couldn't before?"
[ ] Answer is more than "see non-sensitive data" (unless program pays for info disclosure)
[ ] Real victim: another user's data, company's data, financial loss
[ ] Not relying on victim doing something unlikely

Gate 2: Deduplication Check (5 minutes)

[ ] Searched HackerOne Hacktivity for this program + similar bug title/endpoint
[ ] Searched GitHub issues for target repo
[ ] Read most recent 5 disclosed reports for this program
[ ] Not a "known issue" in their changelog or public docs
[ ] Google: "TARGET_NAME ENDPOINT_NAME bug bounty"

Gate 3: Report Quality (10 minutes)

[ ] Title: [Bug Class] in [Endpoint] allows [actor] to [impact]
[ ] Steps to Reproduce: copy-pasteable HTTP request
[ ] Evidence: screenshot/video of actual impact (not just 200 status)
[ ] Severity: matches CVSS 3.1 score AND program's severity definitions
[ ] Remediation: 1-2 sentences of concrete fix
[ ] NEVER used "could potentially" or "may allow"

NEVER SUBMIT LIST

Submitting these destroys your validity ratio.

Missing CSP / HSTS / security headers
Missing SPF / DKIM / DMARC
GraphQL introspection alone (no auth bypass, no IDOR demonstrated)
Banner / version disclosure without working CVE exploit
Clickjacking on non-sensitive pages (no sensitive action PoC)
Tabnabbing
CSV injection (no actual code execution shown)
CORS wildcard (*) without credential exfil proof of concept
Logout CSRF
Self-XSS (only exploits own account)
Open redirect alone (no ATO or OAuth theft chain)
OAuth client_secret in mobile app (known, expected)
SSRF DNS callback only (no internal service access or data)
Host header injection alone (no password reset poisoning PoC)
Rate limit on non-critical forms (search, contact, login with Cloudflare)
Session not invalidated on logout
Concurrent sessions
Internal IP in error message
Mixed content
SSL weak ciphers
Missing HttpOnly / Secure cookie flags alone
Broken external links
Autocomplete on password fields
Pre-account takeover (usually — very specific conditions required)

COMMON N/A CLASSES — KILL SIGNALS

These pass basic gut-check but consistently come back N/A. Each row has a specific signal that tells you to kill it before writing the report.

| Finding | Why it N/As | Kill signal — if you see this, stop | |---|---|---| | Reflected XSS | CSP blocks execution; sandbox context; no session access | Dalfox found alert(1) but no cookie in response; Content-Security-Policy header present | | SSRF — DNS callback only | No internal data reached; programs require HTTP response with data | Interactsh/Collaborator got DNS ping but no HTTP reply with internal content | | IDOR — own data only | Attacker == victim; no cross-account access proven | User ID in response matches your own test account | | SQLi — error message only | WAF filtered or error is cosmetic; no data exfiltrated | Got DB error string but no actual table rows returned | | CORS wildcard * | * blocks withCredentials; no PII actually exfiltrated | Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true absent; credentialed request returns 403 | | Rate limit missing — non-sensitive endpoint | Program only pays for rate-limit on auth/payment/OTP surfaces | Endpoint handles search, contact form, or sits behind Cloudflare | | Nuclei info template match | Version detection, not exploitation | Template severity is info; no CVE PoC executed against live service | | MFA rate limit (no lockout) | Impact depends on OTP brute-force succeeding — it usually doesn't | 15 requests returned 200 but no OTP code was accepted | | Open redirect alone | Redirect is informational without token theft chain | No OAuth redirect_uri parameter; no auth code or token in the redirected URL | | Auth bypass — admin precondition | Requires compromised admin to trigger; attacker can't get there | "Admin can do X on behalf of user" — attacker must already be admin | | XSS via alert(document.domain) | Not proof of session theft | PoC shows domain popup only; no document.cookie exfil, no event listener | | SAML metadata exposed | Disclosure only — aids attack but is not standalone impact | No private key or signing cert extracted; metadata is publicly documented by IdP |

Decision rule: if your finding matches a kill signal → classify as [INFORMATIONAL], do not run /validate, move on.

CONDITIONALLY VALID — CHAIN REQUIRED

Build the chain first, prove it works end to end, THEN report.

| Standalone Finding | Chain Required | Valid Result | |---|---|---| | Open redirect | + OAuth redirect_uri → auth code theft | ATO (Critical) | | Clickjacking | + sensitive action + working PoC | Medium | | CORS wildcard | + credentialed request exfils user PII | High | | CSRF | + sensitive action (transfer funds, change email, delete account) | High | | Rate limit bypass | + OTP/reset token brute force succeeds | Medium/High | | SSRF DNS-only | + internal service access + data returned | Medium | | Host header injection | + password reset email uses injected host | High | | Prompt injection | + reads other user's data (IDOR) | High | | S3 bucket listing | + JS bundles contain API keys or OAuth secrets | Medium/High | | Self-XSS | + CSRF to trigger it on victim without their knowledge | Medium | | Subdomain takeover | + OAuth redirect_uri registered at that subdomain | Critical | | GraphQL introspection | + auth bypass mutation or IDOR on node() | High |

CVSS 3.1 QUICK REFERENCE

Common Score Examples

| Finding | Score | Severity | Vector | |---|---|---|---| | IDOR read PII, any user, auth required | 6.5 | Medium | AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N | | IDOR write/delete, any user | 7.5 | High | AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | | Auth bypass → admin panel | 9.8 | Critical | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | | Stored XSS → cookie theft, stored | 8.8 | High | AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N | | SQLi → full DB dump | 8.6 | High | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | | SSRF → cloud metadata | 9.1 | Critical | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N | | Race → double spend | 7.5 | High | AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | | GraphQL auth bypass | 8.7 | High | AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | | JWT none algorithm | 9.1 | Critical | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H |

Metric Quick Guide

| What you have | Metric | Value | |---|---|---| | Exploitable over internet | AV | Network (N) | | No special timing or race | AC | Low (L) | | Free account needed | PR | Low (L) | | No login needed | PR | None (N) | | Admin needed | PR | High (H) | | No victim action | UI | None (N) | | Victim must click | UI | Required (R) | | Reads all data | C | High (H) | | Reads some data | C | Low (L) | | Modifies all data | I | High (H) | | Crashes service | A | High (H) | | Affects only app | S | Unchanged (U) | | Affects browser/OS/cloud | S | Changed (C) |

KILL FAST RULES

The goal is to QUICKLY disqualify bad leads so you hunt real bugs:

1. 5-minute rule: If you can't fill in Q1's template in 5 minutes → move on
2. Precondition count: More than 2 preconditions simultaneously required → kill it
3. Impact test: "What does attacker walk away with?" — if nothing tangible → kill it
4. Admin bypass: "Admin can do X" is NEVER a bug → kill it immediately
5. Design doc test: If it's documented behavior → kill it immediately
6. Rabbit hole signal: 30+ min on Q6 with no reproducible PoC → kill it

ANTI-PATTERNS THAT LOSE MONEY

Writing a report before confirming the bug exists (most common)
Submitting theoretical impact without proof
"The API returns more fields than necessary" (sensitivity matters — is it actually sensitive?)
Chaining A+B into one report when they're separate bugs (two separate payouts)
Reporting B saying "similar to A in my other report" — fresh Gate 0 for every bug
Overclaiming severity — triagers trust you less next time
Under-describing impact — triager doesn't understand why it matters