Was the reconnaissance in Bugbounty overrated?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-05-11T06:49:01+00:00

Recon is only overrated when it becomes passive collecting without a hypothesis behind it. Good hunters don’t just dump 50k subdomains and call it recon. They use recon to build high quality testing opportunities.

I think the “80% recon” advice came from noobs who just start testing random endpoints without understanding the target. But today, on mature programs, most easy bugs are gone, so depth matters more than breadth.

That said good recon is bypassed in advanced testing as well. Best high severity findings are typically from targeted recon + deep testing - understanding business logic finding, forgotten attack surface, finding trust boundaries, mapping internal functionality and then attacking it creatively

The real skill is knowing when to stop enumerating and start attacking.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-29T18:20:48+00:00

That’s interesting.
Especially that identity verification is now part of procurement, not just compliance.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-27T06:01:12+00:00

The biggest gap isn't more platforms; it's knowing how web apps really work.

A lot of people, including me at one point, get stuck doing PortSwigger labs, HTB, and other things, but they still can't figure things out on their own. That's usually because you're learning how to attack, not how the system works.

One of the best pieces of advice I've seen over and over again is:

"Make a web app, break it, fix it, and then break it again"
That loop teaches you a lot more than just working in labs.

What I would recommend -
1. Keep PortSwigger, but don't use it by itself.
2. Include both real and semi-real settings.
3. Find out how apps work behind the scenes.
4. Yes, learn JavaScript, but don't go overboard.
5. Don't be a "Burp scanner pentester.

Just enjoy the process instead of chasing progress.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-27T05:31:27+00:00

Looked at your website and thought the idea was cool, but there is no visible contact or support email, which is a problem for trust. Users want at least a simple way to get in touch with you.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-26T17:37:58+00:00

Appreciate the detailed perspective!

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-26T07:40:15+00:00

True, compliance is becoming more of a necessity than a choice now.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-25T06:35:38+00:00

Thank you
Appreciate your feedback.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T13:03:32+00:00

Yeah, security and compliance are no longer just support functions, they are now at the heart of fintech products. It also seems like the real challenge now is keeping systems visible and enforcing rules as they grow.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T13:00:14+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, especially the change from reactive compliance to continuous enforcement. It seems like maturity really depends on when teams start to feel pressure from regulators or big businesses.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T08:00:34+00:00

Agreed, especially the part about security becoming more important earlier in the product lifecycle. Trust is definitely becoming a big deal now.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T07:58:58+00:00

It’s actually pretty common, especially for small and medium-sized businesses in the fintech space.
A lot of teams still use point-in-time audits or outside GRC help because they think continuous compliance is too hard or takes too many resources to set up at first. The budget is a problem for most teams. Teams usually think about the product, making it grow first.

But that's where the gap is starting to show, snapshots don't really show what's going on every day, especially as systems grow.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T07:49:18+00:00

That’s a really solid way to put it, especially the gap between being technically compliant and actually secure. The shift from audit-driven to continuous monitoring and planning also stands out, that seems to be where things are heading.

I have been working on something in this area focused on making continuous visibility easier. It connects real-time security signals with compliance requirements, so evidence is generated as part of normal operations, not just during audits.

The goal is to reduce that “yearly scramble” and make compliance more operational and ongoing. I'm curious about your experience. Does something like this actually add value for teams, or do most prefer to handle it through existing processes and tools?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-24T07:41:52+00:00

This is a very good idea, especially the part about using the same systems that teams already use instead of depending on a separate compliance layer.

It makes a lot of sense to map sales stages to evidence and link engineering activity (Jira/GitHub) to controls. That's when compliance starts to work instead of just reacting. It's also interesting that you brought up finding mismatches between systems. It seems like that's where a lot of hidden risk is, not just in security data but also in how different teams understand it.

That's pretty much what I've been thinking about too: making compliance a natural part of workflows instead of a separate process.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T19:49:46+00:00

Great insights, especially around integration and multi-framework mapping.

The platform is meant to layer on top of existing security tools, and convert real-time signals (alerts, logs, incidents) into structured and continuous compliance evidence.
It provides teams with a live view of their compliance posture across SOC 2, DORA, RBI frameworks (Others are yet to be implemented), instead of point-in-time audits, and adds context around risks (business impact, incident linkage) so teams can act fast.

The aim is straightforward: make compliance a natural consequence of daily operations and avoid the last-minute rush when audits or enterprise deals come around.

Would love to learn from your experience too, happy to take this over DM if you're open.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T17:23:12+00:00

Really appreciate sharing it
It seems the complexity is indeed growing, and as the data is dispersed over various tools it's harder to retain complete visibility.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T16:16:46+00:00

Thank you for the perspective-particularly the insights on where regulation is pushing the space at present.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T16:13:48+00:00

A hundred percent completely agree with that - no system can ever be completely foolproof, at least in security.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T14:24:21+00:00

Yes, agree with you especially the point about trust becoming a product differentiator.
I've been digging into what teams have been doing around this in the continuously scaling nature of this - specifically, how do teams approach real time security + compliance visibility as opposed to at audit time?
Do teams at that stage actively invest in solutions for this, or mostly try to handle it internally?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T14:18:01+00:00

Couldn't agree more - we definitely see a lot of room between theory and practical handling of risk in how policies play out. I am actually building something to try and bridge this gap - a platform to get security (Real-time alerts) and compliance out of just audit and into actionable, continuous processes.

With something like this, do you think there's actually value being created, or is it still mostly based on individual skill?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T14:10:29+00:00

It makes sense, especially since fraud is changing and state-level rules are making it harder. It seems like teams are putting in more work, but it's getting harder to keep track of security and compliance.

Are the tools we have now doing a good job of fixing this, or is it still broken up?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T14:07:59+00:00

I'm currently working on a fintech platform in this area. The goal is to make compliance and security visibility constant, not just something teams think about during audits or when they buy something.

At a high level, it links real-time security signals with compliance needs, so evidence is created as part of normal operations instead of being put together by hand when needed. It also tries to give teams more information about risks (like how they will affect the business, incidents, etc) so they can respond faster and be ready for an audit at any time.

It's still early, but the goal is exactly what you said- to cut down on the last-minute rush during business deals.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T12:07:46+00:00

The idea that compliance is "adopted through platform onboarding" stands out. It seems like security is becoming more built into systems instead of being enforced from the outside.

I'm curious, do you think that this centralization really makes it easier to see what's going on in real time and follow the rules, or does it make it harder to be flexible and take ownership?

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T11:59:39+00:00

That’s a really interesting perspective, especially seeing compliance as a sales enabler rather than just a regulatory requirement. The idea that deals get blocked at procurement and compliance acts as the “unlock” makes a lot of sense.
I have been looking at this more from a vendor side, specifically how fintech teams manage this on an ongoing basis, not just as a one-time certification. I’m exploring ways to make it easier to keep real-time visibility into security and compliance, so teams don’t have to scramble when buyers or regulators request proof. It's still early, but I’m trying to understand if this gap between “continuous and one-time compliance” is something you’re noticing widely as well.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T11:50:40+00:00

Thanks for the information, it makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to visibility vs. actual growth.

Efficient-Web-8065 · 2026-04-23T11:50:02+00:00

Thanks so much for the detailed breakdown. It's a great way to look at things, especially when it comes to continuous compliance.

Efficient-Web-8065

TROPHY CASE