ImpactQA’s Team of Ethical Hackers Receive Global Recognition by Fortune 500 Companies via Bug Bounty Program
Several security parameters need to be fulfilled for an organization to succeed in its quest to deliver secure software applications. “Modern problems require modern solutions,” and which is why global enterprises, be it the public or private sector, are seeking quick response initiatives to search for potential security vulnerabilities.
Bug Bounty Program is one such initiative that is on the rise. Such programs permit the developers to determine and resolve bugs at the earliest before the end-users get to spot them; this prevents incidents of widespread abuse and helps safeguard the organization’s reputation.
Why Is Bug Bounty Program Receiving Intense Traction?
A bug bounty program can be seen as a deal offered by several prominent organizations, websites, and software developers to invite security researchers to search for possible risks, vulnerabilities, and data security breaches on its public-based digital systems. The reason for the extensive popularity of bug bounty programs is the hefty reward amount associated with such initiatives. Individuals are rewarded and globally recognized by market leaders, thereby fulfilling the dream for many.
According to a report released in February 2020 by HackerOne, the collective amount earned by hackers from bug bounty programs was approximately $40 million!
ImpactQA & Its Successful Run with Bug Bounty
Looking at the changing security testing landscape activated by emerging technology, the determination of application vulnerabilities has become slightly complex. ImpactQA & its team of ethical hackers were recently rewarded for reporting security breaches for Fortune 500 companies as part of a bug bounty program.
The company has been persistent in providing penetration and security testing services for the past 10+ years. ImpactQA has helped leading organizations from banking, e-commerce, medicine, logistics, etc., in ensuring zero vulnerability with each of their software products with such experience and expertise.
Narasimha Raju, CTO at ImpactQA, praised this achievement and said:
“I am very proud to note that our ethical hacking team’s contributions are recognized by below Fortune 500 companies ( lntel, Google, OlaCabs, Zomato, Bumble, Snapchat, IBM, PayPal, Apple, Pinterest, RedHat, OnePlus, Sony, Western Union, US Defence Dept, Badoo, ESET, EC-Council, Under-Armour, Twilio, NetGear and more ) by listing us in the hall of fame board. ImpactQA will continue to contribute through our responsible disclosure program and ensure a secure digital world”.
He further highlighted the team’s efficiency in serving clients to resolve serious challenges associated with large-scale projects. The company promises to stabilize its efforts to reinforce security testing, penetration testing, VAPT testing, cybersecurity testing, and cloud security testing.
What are the Benefits of the Bug Bounty Program?
Organizations can gain better advantages through the bug bounty program. How?
It is a proactive approach to added security efforts. In simple terms, you get an opportunity to sanction ethical hackers who start their hunt to seek and eliminate vulnerabilities before an attacker gets a chance to exploit them. Organizations can count on such programs as a fast track method which is different from traditional ways where companies wait for an attack to happen before actually trying to correct an underlying weakness.
There are several other benefits associated with Bug Bounty Program, such as:
Deter Malicious Activity: The proliferation of such security-based programs helps exploit testers’ curiosity to benefit organizations in checking their system weaknesses and ultimately offering bug-free software applications. Discouraging malicious activities against websites, apps, game consoles, and other technology is one of the more significant bug bounty benefits. Organizations allow themselves to partner with interested individuals actively and provide them with the platform to legitimately incorporate their knowledge and prove themselves as capable security researchers.
Transparent Approach: With traditional penetration testing services, there are situations when fear due to fulfilling compliance requirements might become haunting. However, bug bounties follow a different approach that is more inclined to develop a setup with transparency, sincerity, and responsibility.
Best Alternative to Error Detection: The presence of ethical hackers assists businesses in detecting vulnerabilities before external sources can spot them. Therefore, running a bug bounty program is evolving by being proactive & predictive. It has been tagged as the alternative approach to detect software and configuration-based errors, surpassing developers and security testing teams.
The support towards bounty programs is immense. Organizations like Microsoft find it essential to pull out the dark side of security breaches under the spotlight by making hackers ethical through their participation in such bounty initiatives.
Why Choose ImpactQA as Your Security Partner?
ImpactQA manages a security team consisting of seasoned cybersecurity researchers and offensive security professionals with a wide array of experience in Red Teaming, Offensive Security, and private sector security operations.
You can put your trust in our hand-picked security testing professionals having high-end experience in malware analysis, web application security, mobile application security, IoT security, network security, industrial control systems, and SCADA security.
Interestingly, almost all of our security team members share the reputation of being active participants in world-renowned CTF’s and bug bounty platforms. Moreover, most of these experts are active contributors to the information security community. Our diverse scope of security capabilities is tailored based on every client’s specific needs and budget expectations. With a hands-on approach, our owners and management pride themselves on our responsiveness to the client’s ever-changing requests and security demands.
ImpactQA meticulously selects and trains its professionals to stay up-to-date with the latest trends and challenges in the information security industry. Our adept I.T security team has helped numerous industry-leading tech giants under their bug bounty platforms.
As regular bug hunters and malware analysts, our security team members have taken part in initiatives to identify vulnerabilities, as mentioned below:
| S.No | High | Medium | Low | Informative |
| 1 | OS command injection | XML injection | Client-side XPath injection (DOM-based) | External service interaction (SMTP) |
| 2 | SQL injection | ASP.NET debugging enabled (Info Disclosure) | Client-side XPath injection (reflected DOM-based) | Referer-dependent response |
| 3 | SQL injection (second order) | Cross-site request forgery | Client-side XPath injection (stored DOM-based) | Spoofable client IP address |
| 4 | ASP.NET tracing enabled (Info Disclosure) | SMTP header injection | Client-side JSON injection (DOM-based) | User agent-dependent response |
| 5 | File path traversal | Password returned in later response | Client-side JSON injection (reflected DOM-based) | Cross-domain POST |
| 6 | XML external entity injection | SQL statement in request parameter | Client-side JSON injection (stored DOM-based) | Long redirection response |
| 7 | LDAP injection | XML entity expansion | Cross-origin resource sharing: unencrypted origin trusted | Duplicate cookies set |
| 8 | XPath injection | Open redirection (stored) | Cross-origin resource sharing: all subdomains trusted | Input returned in response (stored) |
| 9 | HTTP PUT method is enabled | Open redirection (stored DOM-based) | Password submitted using GET method | Input returned in response (reflected) |
| 10 | Out-of-band resource load (HTTP) | TLS cookie without secure flag set | Password returned in URL query string | Suspicious input transformation (reflected) |
| 11 | File path manipulation | Session token in URL | ASP.NET ViewState without MAC enabled | Suspicious input transformation (stored) |
| 12 | PHP code injection | Password value set in cookie | Vulnerable JavaScript dependency | Request URL override |
| 13 | Server-side JavaScript code injection | Document domain manipulation (DOM-based) | Open redirection (reflected) | Cross-domain Referer leakage |
| 14 | Perl code injection | Document domain manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | Open redirection (DOM-based) | Cross-domain script include |
| 15 | Ruby code injection | Document domain manipulation (stored DOM-based) | Open redirection (reflected DOM-based) | File upload functionality |
| 16 | Python code injection | CSS injection (reflected) | Cookie scoped to parent domain | Frameable response (potential Clickjacking) |
| 17 | Expression Language injection | CSS injection (stored) | Cookie without HttpOnly flag set | Browser cross-site scripting filter disabled |
| 18 | Unidentified code injection | Form action hijacking (reflected) | Password field with autocomplete enabled | HTTP TRACE method is enabled |
| 19 | Server-side template injection | Form action hijacking (stored) | Cookie manipulation (DOM-based) | Denial of service (DOM-based) |
| 20 | SSI injection | Database connection string disclosed | Cookie manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | Denial of service (reflected DOM-based) |
| 21 | Cross-site scripting (stored) | TLS certificate | Cookie manipulation (stored DOM-based) | HTML5 web message manipulation (DOM-based) |
| 22 | HTTP request smuggling | Ajax request header manipulation (DOM-based) | HTML5 web message manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | |
| 23 | Web cache poisoning | Ajax request header manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | HTML5 web message manipulation (stored DOM-based) | |
| 24 | HTTP response header injection | Ajax request header manipulation (stored DOM-based) | HTML5 storage manipulation (DOM-based) | |
| 25 | Cross-site scripting (reflected) | Denial of service (stored DOM-based) | HTML5 storage manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | |
| 26 | Client-side template injection | Link manipulation (DOM-based) | HTML5 storage manipulation (stored DOM-based) | |
| 27 | Cross-site scripting (DOM-based) | Link manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | Link manipulation (reflected) | |
| 28 | Cross-site scripting (reflected DOM-based) | Link manipulation (stored DOM-based) | Link manipulation (stored) | |
| 29 | Cross-site scripting (stored DOM-based) | Client-side HTTP parameter pollution (reflected) | DOM data manipulation (DOM-based) | |
| 30 | JavaScript injection (DOM-based) | Client-side HTTP parameter pollution (stored) | DOM data manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | |
| 31 | JavaScript injection (reflected DOM-based) | Source code disclosure | DOM data manipulation (stored DOM-based) | |
| 32 | JavaScript injection (stored DOM-based) | Content type incorrectly stated | Backup file | |
| 33 | Path-relative style sheet import | Unencrypted communications | Directory listing | |
| 34 | Client-side SQL injection (DOM-based) | Strict transport security not enforced | Email addresses disclosed | |
| 35 | Client-side SQL injection (reflected DOM-based) | Private IP addresses disclosed | ||
| 36 | Client-side SQL injection (stored DOM-based) | Social security numbers disclosed | ||
| 37 | WebSocket URL poisoning (DOM-based) | Credit card numbers disclosed | ||
| 38 | WebSocket URL poisoning (reflected DOM-based) | Private key disclosed | ||
| 39 | WebSocket URL poisoning (stored DOM-based) | Robots.txt file exposure | ||
| 40 | Local file path manipulation (DOM-based) | Cacheable HTTPS response | ||
| 41 | Local file path manipulation (reflected DOM-based) | Base64-encoded data in parameter | ||
| 42 | Local file path manipulation (stored DOM-based) | Multiple content types specified | ||
| 43 | Flash cross-domain policy | HTML does not specify charset | ||
| 44 | Silverlight cross-domain policy | HTML uses unrecognized charset | ||
| 45 | Cross-origin resource sharing | Content type is not specified | ||
| 46 | Cross-origin resource sharing: arbitrary origin trusted | Mixed content | ||
| 47 | Cleartext submission of password | Extension generated issue | ||
| 48 | External service interaction (DNS) | |||
| 49 | External service interaction (HTTP) | |||
| 50 | Serialized object in HTTP message | |||
| 51 | Server Side Request Forgery |
Conclusion
ImpactQA has been a leader in security testing and VAPT testing. We have established new cybersecurity standards and are garnering praise from tech leaders, industry influencers, security researchers, and third-party security labs.
Our recent achievement in a bug bounty program associating us with Fortune 500 companies like lntel, Google, OlaCabs, Zomato, Bumble, Snapchat, IBM, PayPal, Apple, etc, has indeed strengthened our standing among global security testing companies.
For your requirements related to software products’ security testing, you can easily book a free consultation with our experts.
Share this post
Related Posts
Our Case Studies
