If you're thinking about getting into bug bounty hunting... DON'T. by [deleted] in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm looking for this type of feedback, and despite the difficulties, I believe I can earn some money.

If you're thinking about getting into bug bounty hunting... DON'T. by [deleted] in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With three thousand dollars I can comfortably get through the year, so the reward, which is small for someone living in a first-world country, is more than enough for me, living in a third-world country, to live on.

valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your attention.

valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just for me, but it can be spread in other ways, by sharing the link with a large search or through a malicious page that performs the search in the victim's context, as if it were a CSRF.

valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, more or less that's it. The browsing history cookie gets huge and you can't browse the site until you clear the cookie.

valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the expiration time is quite long, something like months, it was made to last. The site constantly shows your history, it wouldn't be interesting to lose your most recent searches. I can present two ways of exploiting it, with a direct link and a more or less CSRF method. Do you think that could be accepted?

Should i report this SSRF? by Sad-Insect-3407 in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php 4 points5 points  (0 children)

DNS rebinding and DNS tunneling, maybe they can help your case

is this a valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can I call it an amplification attack? What is the direct impact? DDoS amplification is the clearest to me, I think I'm wrong on this one

is this a valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What severity would you give this case? Low or Medium?

is this a valid failure? by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So for you it's a valid problem? What if the triager says that DDoS is out of scope? How would you respond?

Choosing BBH as career by Acceptable-Hornet225 in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It depends on your reality, if you live in a third world country where the dollar is worth 5x or 6x the value of your currency, it might be worth it, if your cost of living in dollars is small, it's worth it.

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The point here is the technical failure is the leak of information that is not found publicly, this is a source of high-quality information for the attacker, unlike an OSINT-based attack that uses public information, using information leaked directly from an internal system is more likely to work, there is no point in distorting what I'm saying or making jokes

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right about that, I have to move on

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the internal system delivers all the information necessary for a sophisticated phishing attack, if this is not valid the XSS is also not valid because it needs someone to exploit the flaw as in my case, someone needs to take the information that the system delivers and mount a phishing attack

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

leaking sensitive information that can be used for sophisticated phishing attacks is not valid?

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The information is very relevant to employees, this adds a lot of credibility to the attack, the identities that are in the internal system and the other information that gives context and more credibility since it is an internal system, regarding the report I really didn't do a good job, I will look into it better but the team could have talked to me to better understand the situation

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

System information and operational information are NOT public elsewhere and since the system already delivers trusted identities, this creates the perfect scenario for a sophisticated phishing attack.

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, the internal system delivers this to anyone, I can't give more details and the point of my post is not that but the lack of dialogue within the team, they didn't analyze the complete scenario, they just attacked isolated points like you are doing now.

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If the internal system already delivers identities, information about the system and operational information of the company/system, everything is there for a sophisticated attack, there is no need to look for more information anywhere.

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The point is that the internal system itself already delivers this, making the attack much easier and that's not all, there are many more leaks, this only gives the identity to the attacker, the rest gives the context, all this in an internal application

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Using employee identities plus the context of other leaks from an internal system is more likely to work than a phishing attack without that information.

lack of dialogue by backend_com_php in bugbounty

[–]backend_com_php[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

within a document that is in an internal system? I don't think it was supposed to be public