&gt; <i>5. Fb nukes the server, confirms the RCE, pays out $2500 for it, declines to pay for the second finding, and asks the tester not to use RCEs to explore their systems.</i><p>The issue here is that, in hindsight, FB failed at this step.<p>They nuked the server, but they didn&#x27;t determine what sensitive information was available on that server, and take steps to mitigate those risks.<p>I think that&#x27;s an understandable mistake - cleaning up after a server intrusion is hard. Knowing how much to do after a <i>possible</i> intrusion is even harder. <i>But</i> it is still a mistake and it happened on Alex&#x27;s watch.<p>If the purpose of the bounty program is to find out about your security mistakes, then the program did its job here, and Alex should be pleased that the problem was reported so that they could fix it.<p>That the researcher found the mistake by overstepping what is considered ethical (and I have no doubt that they did overstep) creates a very difficult situation - you don&#x27;t want to reward that behaviour, but you do want to know about security problems and this one was only discovered&#x2F;reported because of that bad behaviour.<p>In that difficult situation it is all the more important to tread carefully. The easy cases where you&#x27;re paying out a $10k bounty typically don&#x27;t require much finesse. It&#x27;s the tricky cases where you need to make sure your actions are well considered and above-board at every step.<p>From Alex&#x27;s own summary it&#x27;s evident that he didn&#x27;t handle it as well as he could have.<p>Two of the longest paragraphs in Alex&#x27;s write up cover what he said to the CEO of Synack, even though Synack had nothing to do with this. Even if we accept that Alex thought it likely the Wes was acting on behalf of Synack (personally, I don&#x27;t think that was a reasonable conclusion to draw, thought I assume Alex is sincere in his view that it was), he should have determined that up front, and then, once he knew it was not work related, he should have avoided:<p>- making accusations about Wes&#x27;s ethics to his boss (<i>&quot;Wes ... had acted unethically&quot;</i>)<p>- suggesting that his external behaviour has implications for his employment (<i>&quot;Wes&#x27;s behavior reflected poorly ... on Synack&quot;</i>)<p>- bringing in the threat of lawyers (<i>&quot;keep this out of the hands of the lawyers&quot;</i>)<p>When faced with the difficult situation of legitimate security research that has (well) overstepped the ethical boundaries, all the evidence is that Alex jumped to the position of <i>protect yourself, protect the company, intimidate and control the researcher</i> and though that is a common and understandable reaction, it&#x27;s not the way you turn a bad situation like this into a good one.