The Struggles of Manual Security Testers in an Automation-Heavy Bug Bounty Era

Bug bounty programs have become a cornerstone of digital security, offering rewards to researchers who uncover vulnerabilities in apps, websites, and systems. It’s a win-win: companies strengthen their defenses, and testers earn well-deserved recognition (and cash). But in today’s bug bounty world, manual testers who rely on their skills and meticulous analysis often feel like they’re fighting an uphill battle against automated tools.

A key frustration for manual testers? The dreaded “Duplicated” status. Imagine spending hours (or days) carefully analyzing a system, only to find out someone using an automated tool beat you to it. It’s disheartening, to say the least, and it’s putting a real strain on these skilled professionals. At times, it raises a harsh question: Is the bug bounty system even designed for manual testers anymore or is it just a lie we keep telling them?

Automation: The Double-Edged Sword of Bug Bounties

Now, automation isn’t the villain here. It’s brought speed, broader coverage, and an easier entry point for newbies, which is great for the industry as a whole. But here’s the problem: when automation gets misused, it disrupts the balance and undervalues the expertise of manual testers.

Take tool like ReNgine, an open-source platform for automating vulnerability scans. These tools make it ridiculously easy to generate bulk reports with little effort or real understanding. A lot of these reports, churned out by so-called “script kiddies,” are surface-level findings that lack depth. And yet, they often crowd out the high-quality, detailed reports manual testers create.

For many manual testers, the constant race against automated tools can feel like an unfair game one where their creativity and expertise don’t stand a chance. It’s no wonder they’re left questioning if the bug bounty system truly values their work.

The Tough Spot for Manual Testers

1. The Duplicate Problem

Manual testers put in the work testing unconventional attack angles, crafting custom payloads, and documenting everything in detail. But more often than not, their reports are flagged as duplicates because an automated scan spit out the same basic issue first. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and makes many wonder if their hard work is even worth it.

2. Quantity Over Quality

Automated tools flood bug bounty platforms with data tons of it. Unfortunately, much of it is low-hanging fruit or plain noise. Program administrators, overwhelmed by the sheer volume, tend to prioritize speed over depth, favoring the first report in rather than the one with the most insight. Manual testers? They lose out.

3. Lack of Recognition

Automation doesn’t bring creativity to the table. Manual testers often provide detailed reproduction steps, context about the vulnerability, and even suggestions for fixing it. But when an automated tool gets there first, all that extra effort goes unnoticed and unrewarded.

At the end of the day, manual testers are left asking themselves: If automated tools are always first to the finish line, where does that leave us?

Ethical and Strategic Concerns

There’s another layer to this: the ethics of over-automating. Flooding programs with automated reports from unskilled users (who might not even understand their own findings) waters down the bug bounty ecosystem. It makes it harder for organizations to identify the vulnerabilities that really matter.

Worse, this emphasis on speed and automation risks alienating the experts those who can uncover sophisticated vulnerabilities that machines simply can’t. Over-relying on automation creates blind spots that could leave systems exposed to serious threats.

If manual testers begin walking away because their skills aren’t valued, the bug bounty community faces a harsh reality: it risks losing its most creative and capable contributors.

Fixing the Imbalance

So, how do we make things better? Here are some ideas to ensure manual testers aren’t left behind:

1. Focus on Quality Over Speed:
   Bug bounty programs should prioritize well-crafted reports that show a deep understanding of the issue, even if they come in later. Rewarding thoughtful analysis over quick wins is key.
2. Limit Automated Submissions:
   Platforms could require testers to provide custom payloads, detailed write-ups, or proof that their findings were manually verified. This would filter out shallow, auto-generated reports.
3. Separate Rewards for Manual and Automated Findings:
   By creating separate categories, manual testers would finally get the recognition they deserve. It’s a simple way to highlight the value of human effort alongside automation.
4. Encourage Collaboration:
   Imagine if testers could build on each other’s findings rather than racing to submit first. Collaborative reports could be rewarded collectively, creating a more supportive and less competitive environment.

The Bigger Picture

Automation has brought undeniable benefits to bug bounty programs, but it’s also created real challenges especially for manual testers. These skilled professionals are essential for uncovering nuanced vulnerabilities and ensuring robust digital security. Ignoring their contributions in favor of quick, automated fixes puts everyone at risk.

So, is the bug bounty system a lie for manual testers? Not necessarily but it’s clear the system is out of balance. The rise of automation doesn’t have to mean the fall of manual testing. With the right changes, the two can complement each other rather than compete.

The way forward is clear: bug bounty programs need to value quality, creativity, and collaboration over speed. By doing so, they’ll not only support manual testers but also build a stronger, safer digital world.

Manual testers are the unsung heroes of cybersecurity. Their sharp thinking, patience, and ability to see what machines can’t are irreplaceable. Let’s make sure their efforts are rewarded, respected, and encouraged for the long haul.