From an Informational Finding to a Valuable Lesson: My IDOR Discovery on Bugcrowd

Introduction

Every bug bounty hunter dreams of finding a critical vulnerability that earns a large reward. But one of the biggest lessons I've learned is that not every valuable discovery comes with a payout.

Recently, while testing the Immutable Bug Bounty Program on Bugcrowd, I discovered an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability affecting the project management functionality of the Immutable Developer Hub. Although the report was ultimately classified as Informational (P5), the experience significantly improved my understanding of authorization testing, impact assessment, and professional vulnerability reporting.

This article shares my journey, my methodology, and the lessons I learned along the way.

Choosing the Target

When participating in bug bounty programs, I usually look for applications with complex business logic and multiple user roles. These applications often contain subtle authorization flaws that are difficult to detect through automated scanners.

The Immutable Developer Hub immediately caught my attention because it allows developers and game studios to manage blockchain projects, collections, APIs, Passport configurations, and other sensitive resources.

Whenever an application manages assets belonging to multiple organizations, authorization becomes one of the most interesting areas to test.

Understanding the Application

Before sending a single request, I spent time understanding how the application worked.

I mapped:

• Project creation
• Studio management
• API endpoints
• Authentication flow
• Authorization behavior
• Project identifiers

After exploring the API traffic, I noticed that many requests referenced projects directly by their identifiers.

That immediately raised a question:

What happens if I replace my project identifier with someone else's?

This is one of the first questions every security researcher should ask when testing for IDOR vulnerabilities.

Discovering the Authorization Weakness

After creating a normal account and several test projects, I began experimenting with object references.

Instead of interacting only with my own resources, I modified project identifiers in API requests.

The behavior suggested that authorization checks were insufficient.

Although the application correctly authenticated users, certain object references could still be queried without strong ownership validation.

From a security perspective, this represented an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) — a vulnerability where the application trusts client-supplied identifiers without fully verifying whether the authenticated user owns the requested resource.

Reporting the Issue

Once I confirmed the behavior, I prepared a professional Bugcrowd report containing:

• A clear vulnerability description
• Reproduction steps
• HTTP request examples
• Security impact analysis
• Suggested remediation
• Supporting screenshots

I also explained the potential risks if authorization controls were bypassed for project resources.

One lesson I've learned over the years is that a good report isn't just about finding a bug — it's about helping the triage team reproduce and understand it quickly.

The Result

After review, Bugcrowd accepted the report as valid but classified it as:

Informational (P5)

The triage team explained that while the finding demonstrated an authorization concern, it did not show sufficient real-world impact to qualify for a higher severity or a monetary reward.

At first, this was slightly disappointing.

But after reading the triager's explanation carefully, I realized something important:

Finding a vulnerability is only half of the job.

The other half is proving what an attacker can actually achieve.

The Most Important Lesson

Bug bounty isn't just about identifying weaknesses.

It's about demonstrating impact.

Every report should answer one simple question:

"As an attacker, what can I actually do?"

Can I steal data?

Can I modify someone else's resources?

Can I gain privileges?

Can I execute transactions?

Can I compromise another organization?

If those answers cannot be demonstrated convincingly, the report will often receive a lower severity — even if the technical issue is real.

That realization completely changed the way I approach security research.

How This Experience Improved My Skills

Although the submission was informational, it helped me improve in several important areas.

I became more confident in:

• Authorization testing
• IDOR methodology
• API reconnaissance
• Writing professional reports
• Explaining technical impact
• Thinking like both an attacker and a triager

These are skills that carry over into every future assessment.

Looking Ahead

If I encountered a similar issue today, I would spend more time attempting to demonstrate practical impact.

For example, I would investigate whether the authorization weakness could be chained with additional functionality to show:

• Unauthorized modification of project settings
• Exposure of sensitive business information
• Cross-tenant data access
• Privilege escalation
• Financial or operational consequences

Impact is what transforms an informational finding into a medium or high-severity vulnerability.

Final Thoughts

Every accepted report matters.

Every triage comment teaches something.

Every rejection improves your methodology.

This submission reminded me that bug bounty is a continuous learning process rather than a race for rewards.

Today, I'm far more interested in understanding applications deeply, identifying meaningful security flaws, and demonstrating real-world impact than simply increasing my report count.

The reward may have been $0, but the experience was worth far more.

It made me a better security researcher.

And that's an investment that will continue paying off throughout my bug bounty journey.

https://bounty-fouad-site.lovable.app/ https://bugcrowd.com/submissions/7e97166f-1171-49eb-8d27-e505f7b72c27