The Real Reasons Bug Bounty Reports Get Rejected

The Report Was Good… So Why Was It Closed?

A few years ago, I noticed something that kept happening in the bug bounty community.

A beginner would spend hours — or sometimes days — finding a vulnerability. They would finally submit it, feeling confident that they had done everything right.

A day later, the report would come back with a familiar response:

"Need more information."

Or worse:

"Unable to reproduce."

The researcher would immediately assume the platform was unfair or that the triager didn't understand the vulnerability.

But after reading hundreds of bug bounty reports and following discussions between researchers and triagers, a different pattern became obvious.

Most reports weren't rejected because the vulnerability was weak.

They were rejected because the report forced the triager to do extra work.

The triager had to guess where the issue was.

They had to guess which parameter was vulnerable.

They had to guess what the attacker could actually achieve.

They had to guess whether the researcher had confirmed the impact or was simply assuming it.

A bug bounty report isn't just documentation. It's the bridge between discovering a vulnerability and getting it validated.

This article shares the principles that consistently make reports easier to understand, easier to reproduce, and easier to evaluate across most bug bounty platforms.

1. Your Title Is Your First Impression

The title is the first thing a triager sees.

A good title should immediately answer three questions:

• What is the vulnerability?
• Where is it?
• What is the primary security impact?

For example:

• Stored Cross-Site Scripting in User Profile Allows JavaScript Execution
• IDOR in Invoice Download Endpoint Allows Unauthorized Access to Customer Invoices
• SQL Injection in Search Parameter Enables Database Query Manipulation

Now compare those with titles like:

• XSS Found
• Critical Bug
• Security Issue
• High Severity Vulnerability

The second group doesn't tell the triager anything useful.

A descriptive title reduces confusion before the report is even opened.

2. Never Make the Triager Guess

Every technical claim should be backed by evidence.

If you write:

This leads to account takeover.

Show how.

If you write:

Sensitive information is exposed.

Include the exposed information.

If you cannot demonstrate a claim, avoid presenting it as a confirmed fact.

One of the quickest ways to lose credibility is to make statements that aren't supported by your proof of concept.

3. Write for Someone Who Has Never Seen the Application

Remember that the person reading your report may have no knowledge of the feature you're testing.

Instead of writing:

Go to the settings page.

Write:

Navigate to Profile → Settings → Edit Display Name.

Small details save time and reduce back-and-forth communication.

4. Show More Than You Tell

A strong report relies on evidence rather than opinion.

Useful evidence includes:

• HTTP requests
• HTTP responses
• Screenshots
• Screen recordings
• Burp Suite history
• Payloads
• Console output, when relevant

The easier it is to verify your findings, the easier it is for a triager to validate them.

5. Think Like an Attacker

One question appears repeatedly in bug bounty triage:

"What can an attacker actually do?"

Finding a vulnerability is only part of the report.

You also need to explain the practical security consequence.

For example, instead of writing:

JavaScript executes.

Explain what that execution allows within the application's security context, based on what your proof of concept demonstrates.

Keep your explanation grounded in evidence.

6. Separate Facts From Possibilities

Experienced researchers clearly distinguish between what they observed and what could happen.

For example:

Confirmed

• The payload executed.
• Another user's data was accessible.
• The server returned sensitive configuration data.

Potential

• This behavior could increase the risk of session compromise under certain conditions.
• An attacker may be able to target administrators if they view the affected page.

This distinction helps maintain credibility throughout the report.

7. Keep the Tone Professional

The quality of your report should come from its evidence, not from dramatic wording.

Avoid phrases such as:

• This is definitely P1.
• Extremely critical.
• Please pay ASAP.
• Worst vulnerability ever.

Instead, let the facts speak for themselves.

A calm, objective report is usually more persuasive than an emotional one.

8. Reproduce Your Own Report

Before clicking "Submit," imagine you've never seen the application before.

Now follow your own report from beginning to end.

Can you reproduce the issue using only the information you've written?

If the answer is yes, there's a good chance the triager can as well.

9. Never Skip the Impact Section

Many technically correct reports lose momentum because they don't explain why the issue matters.

Always answer the question:

"What can an attacker do?"

Describe realistic outcomes supported by your findings.

Avoid overstating the impact. Demonstrating a smaller but verified impact is more convincing than claiming a severe impact without evidence.

10. Quality Always Beats Quantity

A report doesn't need to be fifty pages long.

It needs to be clear.

A concise report with complete reproduction steps, strong evidence, and a realistic impact assessment is often more effective than a lengthy report filled with unnecessary information.

Your goal isn't to impress the triager.

Your goal is to help them reproduce the issue, understand the security impact, and validate it without unnecessary back-and-forth.

Words That Improve Technical Reports

The language you choose matters.

Professional reports commonly use terms such as:

• Successfully
• Observed
• Confirmed
• Reproduced
• Authenticated
• Unauthenticated
• Affected Endpoint
• Parameter
• Payload
• Proof of Concept (PoC)
• Steps to Reproduce
• Observed Result
• Expected Result
• Impact
• Business Impact
• Remediation

These words communicate observations clearly without introducing unnecessary emotion.

Words Worth Avoiding

Some phrases immediately make a report feel exaggerated.

Examples include:

• Definitely P1
• Massive vulnerability
• Worst bug ever
• Easily hack the server
• 100% Account Takeover
• I think…
• Maybe…
• Probably…
• Could lead to anything

Whenever possible, replace speculation with evidence.

Instead of writing:

I think this is exploitable.

Write:

Based on the observed behavior and the attached proof of concept, the application accepts arbitrary input without server-side validation.

Small changes like this make a report sound more objective and easier to trust.

A Simple Framework That Works Well

While every bug bounty platform has its own preferences, many successful reports follow a similar structure:

Title

Summary

Prerquisites (if applicable)

Affected Asset or Endpoint

Steps to Reproduce

Proof of Concept

Observed Result

Expected Result

Impact

Business Impact

Remediation

References (optional)

You don't need to include every section in every report, but thinking through each one helps ensure you've provided the information a triager needs.

Final Thoughts

A successful bug bounty report isn't measured by how many pages it contains or how technical it sounds.

It's measured by one simple outcome:

Can another person reproduce your finding, understand its impact, and validate it with confidence?

If the answer is yes, you've already done something that many researchers overlook.

Finding a vulnerability is an important skill.

Communicating it clearly is what turns that finding into a successful report.