Skip to content

High-Value Targets (Prioritized Programs)

This list highlights programs with the highest recent bounty payouts, prioritized for focused research. Rankings are based on aggregated HackerOne hacktivity for the 6-month window 2025-03 to 2025-08.

Last updated: 2025-09-01

Top Programs (last 6 months)

Rank Program Total Payout Reports Program Page
1 Uber $20,340.00 24 https://hackerone.com/uber
2 Eternal $9,300.00 12 https://hackerone.com/eternal
3 OKG $7,500.00 6 https://hackerone.com/okg
4 TikTok $6,000.00 12 https://hackerone.com/tiktok
5 Sheer $900.00 6 https://hackerone.com/sheer_bbp
6 GitLab $600.00 12 https://hackerone.com/gitlab
7 PayPal $600.00 6 https://hackerone.com/paypal
8 Ferrero $0.00 30 https://hackerone.com/ferrero
9 MediaTek $0.00 24 https://hackerone.com/mediatek
10 Zooplus $0.00 18 https://hackerone.com/zooplus

Strategic High-Value Additions

Program Priority Reason Program Page
Coinbase 🚨 CRITICAL Major crypto exchange, $50K+ critical bounties, 519 subdomains discovered https://hackerone.com/coinbase

Historical Notes (recent activity)

  • Uber: Consistent “BountyAwarded” activity during 2025-03..2025-08 with multiple awards per month.
  • Eternal: Frequent awards in late August; steady reporter engagement.
  • OKG: Notable award spikes mid-to-late August 2025.
  • TikTok: Regular bounty activity; multiple awards in August 2025.
  • Sheer: Lower absolute payouts but steady cadence of awards.
  • GitLab: Smaller individual awards; consistent monthly activity.
  • PayPal: Intermittent awards, including early September.
  • Ferrero/MediaTek/Zooplus: High volume of resolved activity; limited public award amount exposure.

Program Quality Signals (Community/Operational Heuristics)

When two programs pay similar amounts, “program quality” often dominates expected value. Signals that repeatedly show up in community discussions:

  • Clear impact standards (esp. for Blind SSRF / OAST findings):
  • Programs that document what evidence they accept (e.g., DNS/HTTP callbacks, timing-based internal reachability, status-code differentials, header leaks) reduce report churn.
  • Watch for programs that require data exfiltration only for SSRF; this can be a time sink unless you can safely demonstrate higher impact.
  • Bonus signal: they explicitly recognize internal network mapping / WAF-bypass-by-proxy / protocol pivot proofs as meaningful impact when exfiltration is unsafe or impractical.
  • Fair, consistent triage:
  • Low “Informative / N/A” rates for valid vuln classes and predictable severity mapping.
  • Willingness to engage on nuance (business logic, chains, internal reachability) rather than rubber-stamping.
  • Fast feedback loop:
  • Reasonable response SLAs, low ghosting, and credible mediation outcomes.
  • Duplicate pressure vs. depth:
  • Programs with heavy “spray-and-pray” tooling overlap can have high duplicate rates; higher EV often comes from programs where manual, product-understanding bugs (logic, authZ, SSRF, cache poisoning/desync edge cases) are rewarded.
  • Community meta-signal: if hunters consistently report success with a “lighter” stack (proxy + notes + targeted automation) it often correlates with programs where understanding workflows beats running scanners.
  • Scope quality:
  • Modern asset inventory (well-defined subdomain patterns, APIs, mobile, integrations) and explicit third-party boundaries.
  • Disclosure and learning culture:
  • Public write-ups / hacktivity that show interesting classes being rewarded (authZ, SSRF, desync, supply-chain) is a strong indicator the program pays for real risk.
  • Remediation posture (especially VDPs):
  • Some high-signal targets (e.g., government VDPs) can have very long remediation timelines. Great for reputation/impact, but low expected value if you’re optimizing for payout/velocity.
  • “Contribution surface” / CI-CD exposure:
  • Community write-ups about exploits starting from PR comments, CI pipelines, webhooks, integrations, or supply-chain touchpoints are a signal to prioritize programs where those surfaces are in-scope (often higher severity, lower duplicate pressure).

Next Steps

  • Review each program page and policy for current scope and exclusions
  • Start or update program documentation directories using the templates
  • Track changes to scope over time (dated entries)