Why was a Bug Bounty platform built in Russia, and what prevents the team from partnering with traditional security firms to audit software, apps, and websites as before?
The founders believe that the strongest security checks come from skilled hackers. The platform provides clients with access to a wide network of independent experts, white hat researchers, and a diverse community of bug hunters. They viewed the classic model as limited, focused mainly on vulnerability discovery. The new approach reframes testing as a way to demonstrate real attack scenarios, showing what could go wrong in a system when an attacker pursues a specific avenue.
There are relatively few penetration testers with the right depth of experience in one firm. A conventional information security company might employ 10, 20, or 50 testers. A Bug Bounty platform, by contrast, taps into a much larger pool. It is powered by a worldwide community whose combined capabilities surpass those of a single company, enabling a broader range of skills and perspectives.
Even the most well-coordinated internal teams cannot match the breadth and speed of insights generated by a large, diverse crowd. With Bug Bounty, researchers of varied specializations, preferences, and experience examine targets, creating a wider net for security gaps to surface.
For instance, a client looking to verify the security of a mobile application benefits from more specialized researchers than a typical information security firm could provide. In a Bug Bounty setup, there can be many more contributors, leading to the discovery of a greater number of vulnerabilities.
How many qualified hackers exist in Russia today?
Estimated figures suggest roughly 2,000 seasoned experts who have participated in prior bug bounty work and understand the landscape. Including newcomers, the pool could grow to about 10,000 in the future, joining the ranks of the more experienced specialists.
Is there a plan to attract talent from abroad?
Yes. The team is actively engaging with lawyers and financial advisors to map out lawful payment pathways for international participants.
How is it ensured that foreign hackers seeking to help are legitimate and not tied to information about Russian vulnerabilities that could be shared with other governments?
Any company can be hacked outside of a Bug Bounty program. If a client chooses to host a program, they accept the risk of exposure that could come with participation. Pen testers gain access to infrastructures that are openly accessible, which means both white hat and black hat researchers could attempt intrusions under different conditions.
White hat researchers disclose vulnerabilities to the client and receive a reward and professional recognition. Black hat actors, in contrast, may exploit discoveries for illegal purposes.
— Do the hackers on the platform ever obscure their identities?
The platform acts as an intermediary. It connects hackers with clients and allows terms that may or may not require disclosure of a tester’s identity. Identity disclosure, when requested, is handled on a case-by-case basis, but disclosure is not the primary purpose of the platform.
What do clients think about the anonymity of researchers? Do they often demand real identities?
There is substantial interest from businesses in promoting tester identities, especially when they fear reputational damage from publicly disclosed weaknesses. In such cases, adding white hat researchers to a program can be beneficial. At the same time, clients acknowledge that public involvement reduces the number of experts willing to operate openly.
— How much compensation do testers receive?
The share for testers on the anonymized route is modest, around five percent of the overall reward, which many consider insufficient. For clients who want tighter control over their infrastructure but do not want anonymity, a traditional targeted pentest with a security firm may be more appropriate.
— Do Bug Bounty testers violate platform rules by sharing vulnerabilities?
Incidents exist but are rare and typically the result of mistakes rather than intent. When a tester engages with a client through the platform, the goal is to build trust, not to harm. If a client creates a closed testing service, testers who are invited to participate are expected to adhere to responsible disclosure, and the first to uncover issues in that service are rewarded accordingly.
How does the platform handle punishment for rule violations by testers?
To maintain trust, testers who break the rules can be removed from the platform or blocked from specific programs. Penalties may also include withholding promised payments, depending on the circumstances. Each case is assessed individually to balance the interests of both client and tester.
— Is there a mechanism to address criminal activity by testers?
The platform does not prescribe a fixed policy for every scenario. When a problem arises, conversations with both client and tester help determine the cause, followed by a decision that aligns with the involved parties’ arguments. The aim is to act as an impartial moderator and protect the interests of both sides.
Following a notable funding and policy shift in the global bug bounty ecosystem, some platforms stopped engaging Russian participants. The responses among Russian researchers varied; many moved to other platforms or relied on private programs with flexible payment terms. The lack of public programs in Russia is not a deterrent for those who wish to contribute, as private initiatives continue to offer opportunities for rewards.
How does a tester prove their legitimacy on international platforms?
Some platforms require testers to share payment details to validate location, which can influence how payments are processed. Still, many programs rely on reputation and prior performance rather than formal identity alone. The project’s leadership stresses that the Bug Bounty initiative began before such restrictions and aligns with a belief that independent verification of systems and IT infrastructure is a crucial step in assessing overall security effectiveness.
— What might the user experience look like in the platform interface?
The interface is envisioned as a lively space fitting its subculture roots, with avatars and playful icons. While the environment can include humorous or meme-inspired visuals, the core focus remains on rigorous security testing and responsible disclosure. The idea is to encourage robust testing while keeping the experience engaging and accessible.