[Voliokis]

This might be unpopular, but if you don't feel like the compensation adequately reflects your effort, then you're free to do whatever you think is fair. It's your work. Slack isn't entitled to that work. Ideally, you'd check beforehand what a bug bounty program usually pays out and then decide whether to work on some other company's product that pays better. But you're always going to have people who are interested in doing this stuff and you're always going to have people who will look for the best pay-out for the work they've done.

The problem with starting with the baseline of "the right thing to do is always to disclose the vulnerability to Slack regardless of how little they pay" is that it perpetuates the exploitation of legitimate and important work by skilled workers. The onus should be on Slack to provide fair compensation, not on people doing this important work to "do it out of the good of their hearts".

Slack as a company had a revenue of $401 million last year and the average payout in their bug bounty program is $1376 (https://github.blog/2018-03-14-four-years-of-bug-bounty/). That's just disgusting.

[Wowfunhappy]

> Slack isn't entitled to that work.

Sure, but that isn’t the user’s fault, and they’re the ones who are going to get attacked. I don’t disagree with your other points but I don’t think selling an exploit on the black market is the right solution.

Perhaps the best compromise, as I think about it, is to just make the exploit public with no prior warning to the vendor. That’s not great for users either, but at least they’re informed, and the vendor will be left scrambling. But in that case, the researcher gets paid nothing at all.

[tjbecker]

> Sure, but that isn’t the user’s fault, and they’re the ones who are going to get attacked.

This is true, but the responsibility to protect these users is ultimately on Slack, not the researcher. If Slack's bounties are nowhere near competitive with black market prices, they are failing to protect their users and should be called out on it.

[panpanna]

> whatever you think is fair

Please give us some examples of what you would consider fair in this situation.

[tpxl]

Hours worked for the exploit * 50$ should be enough.

[bawolff]

That's silly.

If someone spends 100 hours coming up with, say a clickjacking vuln, it does not magically make it worth $5000. If someone spends 6 minutes coming up with zero-click sandbox bypass in chrome, its not just worth $5.

Severity matters not time, especially in a bug bounty. If you want the stability (and assurance) of actually getting paid reasonsbly and consistently for this you should get a job as a pentester.

[rubber_duck]

That's kind bad - first of all 50$ can be really low depending on the region, but more importantly this disregards the time spend on looking for exploits that don't pan out.

So I would multiply that 50$ by at least 4.

But still like the other said bugs should pay by severity not by time spent.

[IncRnd]

The researcher would probably get paid even less, if that is the case.

The value of an exploit has nothing to do with the development time.