Setting Up a Bug Bounty Program for Your Sale Infrastructure

A bug bounty program incentivizes independent security researchers, often called white-hat hackers, to responsibly disclose vulnerabilities in your smart contracts and infrastructure before malicious actors can exploit them. For token sale contracts, which manage significant capital inflows and complex logic for whitelisting, vesting, and distribution, this is non-negotiable. A well-publicized program acts as a force multiplier for your internal audits, leveraging the collective expertise of the global security community to harden your code.

The foundation of a successful program is a clear and detailed scope. This document must explicitly list all in-scope assets: the core sale SmartContract addresses, the factory contracts that deploy them, any associated Proxy or Upgradeable contracts, and the official front-end application URLs. It should also define out-of-scope elements, such as third-party dependencies or already-audited libraries like OpenZeppelin. Crucially, you must classify vulnerability severity (e.g., Critical, High, Medium, Low) with concrete examples and corresponding bounty rewards, often ranging from $50,000+ for Critical flaws down to $1,000 for Medium issues.

You need a secure and private channel for vulnerability submissions. While a dedicated security@ email can work, platforms like Immunefi, HackerOne, or Code4rena provide structured workflows, triage assistance, and reputation systems for researchers. These platforms host your program's policy and facilitate communication, ensuring reports are not lost in general support channels. They also help manage the disclosure process, coordinating with you on fixes before any public announcement.

Once a report is submitted, you must have a response protocol. This involves acknowledging receipt within 24-48 hours, validating the bug with your engineering team, and determining its severity and impact. For valid bugs, you then develop and deploy a fix. The entire process, from report to remediation, should be documented. Transparency post-fix, through a disclosure report, builds trust with your community and the security ecosystem, demonstrating your commitment to protecting user assets.

A bug bounty program is a formal, incentivized security review process where independent researchers are rewarded for discovering and responsibly disclosing vulnerabilities in your code. For token sale infrastructure—which typically includes a sale contract, a token contract, and a vesting contract—this is a critical layer of defense. It operates on the principle of crowdsourced security, complementing professional audits by providing continuous, adversarial testing from a diverse pool of talent. The goal is to identify logic flaws, economic exploits, and edge cases that could lead to loss of funds or protocol manipulation before malicious actors find them.

To prepare your codebase for a bug bounty, you must first ensure it has undergone at least one professional audit from a reputable firm like Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, or ConsenSys Diligence. The audit report should be public, and all critical/high-severity findings must be fully resolved. Your contracts should be deployed to a testnet (e.g., Sepolia, Goerli) in a state identical to the intended mainnet deployment, including all constructor arguments and initial configurations. This provides a safe environment for testers to validate their findings without risking real assets.

You need to define the precise scope of your program. This explicitly lists which contracts are in-scope for testing, often by providing their verified addresses on Etherscan for both mainnet and testnet deployments. Common in-scope targets are the core sale, token, and vesting contracts. You must also clearly define what is out-of-scope, such as: the project website's frontend, third-party dependencies like the OpenZeppelin library, and issues that require ownership of the admin private key. A clear scope prevents researcher frustration and focuses efforts on the highest-risk components.

Establishing a responsible disclosure policy and a secure communication channel is non-negotiable. You must create a dedicated, secure email (e.g., security@yourproject.com) or set up a portal on a platform like Immunefi or HackerOne. The policy should outline the process: how to submit a report, the expected response time (e.g., 24-48 hours for acknowledgment), and a commitment not to take legal action against researchers acting in good faith. This builds the trust necessary for ethical hackers to participate.

Finally, you must determine the reward structure. Rewards are typically tiered based on the severity of the vulnerability, often using the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) scale. For a token sale, a critical bug (e.g., allowing unauthorized withdrawal of all funds) could warrant a bounty of $50,000 to $250,000 or more, paid in stablecoins or your project's token. The reward schedule must be published clearly in your program's documentation. Budgeting for these rewards and having the funds readily available in a multisig wallet is a key prerequisite before publicly launching the program.

A clearly defined scope protects your project and security researchers by establishing the rules of engagement. It specifies which systems, smart contracts, and codebases are in-scope for testing, and which are strictly out-of-scope. For a token sale, this typically includes the primary sale contract, the token contract itself, any vesting or lock-up contracts, and the frontend interface that interacts with them. Out-of-scope assets might include third-party dependencies, your project's marketing website, or social media accounts. A vague scope leads to wasted effort, invalid reports, and potential legal issues.

Your scope document must be detailed and technical. Don't just list "the sale contract." Provide the exact contract addresses (e.g., 0x...) deployed on each relevant network (Ethereum Mainnet, Arbitrum, Base). Include links to the verified source code on block explorers like Etherscan and to the public repository if applicable. Specify the commit hash or release tag of the code being tested. This precision allows researchers to immediately begin a targeted analysis without guessing which version is relevant, significantly increasing the quality and speed of vulnerability discovery.

Beyond listing assets, define the types of vulnerabilities you are seeking. Reference a standard severity framework like the Immunefi Vulnerability Severity Classification System or OWASP Top 10. Explicitly state what constitutes a valid bug: - Loss of user funds (Critical) - Theft of unclaimed tokens (High) - Permanent freezing of funds (High) - Theft of gas (Medium). Also clarify what is not a bug, such as theoretical issues without a practical exploit path, or already-known issues from prior audits.

Finally, establish clear testing guidelines. Specify which networks are approved for testing (e.g., a forked mainnet or a designated testnet). Prohibit any testing on production environments with real user funds. Outline the submission process, expected report format, and your policy on responsible disclosure. A well-scoped program sets clear expectations, attracts serious researchers, and ensures your security budget is focused on the code that truly matters for the safety of your sale.

A secure disclosure process begins with a dedicated, encrypted communication channel. Do not rely on public forums, social media, or standard support tickets. Establish a PGP-encrypted email address (e.g., security@yourproject.com) and publish the public key on your project's official security page. This ensures that vulnerability reports remain confidential and are not intercepted. Clearly document this process in a SECURITY.md file in your project's GitHub repository and link to it from your main website.

Your disclosure policy must define clear rules of engagement. Specify which assets are in scope (e.g., the smart contract repository, the sale website frontend, backend APIs) and which are out of scope (e.g., third-party dependencies). Outline the expected severity classification using the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) framework. Crucially, you must commit to a safe harbor policy, guaranteeing that researchers acting in good faith will not face legal action. This is essential for encouraging responsible disclosure.

For handling reports, implement a triage workflow. Assign a dedicated security lead or team to monitor the disclosure channel. Upon receiving a report, immediately acknowledge receipt within 24-48 hours. Validate the bug internally and assess its severity. Maintain transparent communication with the researcher throughout the fix development and deployment process. Tools like HackerOne, Immunefi, or a self-hosted solution like ZenGRC can help manage this workflow, but a well-documented manual process is a valid starting point.

Finally, plan for the remediation and disclosure phases. Once a fix is deployed, coordinate a public disclosure date with the researcher. It is standard practice to offer a bug bounty reward commensurate with the severity of the finding. Publish a post-mortem or advisory detailing the vulnerability (after it is patched) to inform the community and demonstrate your project's commitment to security. This transparency builds trust with both users and the security research community.

Before launching your program, you must draft a legal safe harbor agreement. This document, often called a Terms of Service or Participation Agreement, grants security researchers legal protection for good-faith vulnerability research. It should explicitly state that activities conducted within the program's scope are authorized and will not result in civil or criminal prosecution. Prominent platforms like Immunefi and HackerOne provide standard templates, but you must customize them for your specific smart contracts and infrastructure. Key clauses include a waiver of liability, a grant of limited license to test, and a requirement for researchers to maintain confidentiality.

The Rules of Engagement document defines the operational boundaries of your program. This is where you specify the in-scope and out-of-scope assets. For a token sale, in-scope targets typically include the sale contract address, the token contract, the project's website frontend interacting with these contracts, and any related admin or vesting contracts. Clearly list out-of-scope items, such as third-party dependencies, social engineering attacks, or denial-of-service vectors. You must also define the severity classification matrix, which maps bug types (e.g., Critical, High, Medium) to specific financial rewards. Use the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) framework as a baseline for consistency.

Your rules must detail the submission and disclosure process. Specify that all reports must be submitted through your chosen platform's private channel. Outline the expected timeline for triage (e.g., initial response within 48 hours) and the steps for validation and reward payment. A critical component is the public disclosure policy. Most programs follow coordinated disclosure, where the researcher agrees not to publicly disclose the vulnerability until your team has deployed a fix. This policy should be explicitly stated to prevent premature exposure that could endanger user funds.

For maximum clarity, provide concrete examples of valid and invalid reports. A valid example: "A reentrancy vulnerability in the claimTokens function of the sale contract allows an attacker to drain the contract." An invalid example: "The website's FAQ page has a typo." This reduces noise and sets professional expectations. Finally, ensure all documents are easily accessible from your program's main page. Transparency in your rules builds trust with the security community, encouraging high-quality submissions and fostering a positive long-term relationship with researchers.

The triage workflow is your program's central nervous system. It defines the path a security report takes from initial submission to resolution. A clear, documented process prevents critical bugs from being lost and sets clear expectations for researchers. Your workflow should have distinct stages: Submission Review, Initial Validation, Severity Assessment, Remediation, and Payout. Tools like HackerOne, Immunefi, or a custom dashboard built with their APIs can automate status tracking and communication.

Initial validation is the first critical filter. When a report arrives, your team must quickly determine if it's a duplicate, out-of-scope, or a false positive. Start by checking for existing reports on the same vulnerability. Then, verify the bug is within your defined scope—attacks on your live sale contract, website, or backend API are in-scope, while theoretical issues on unaudited mock contracts are not. For technical validation, have an engineer attempt to reproduce the issue using the provided proof-of-concept (PoC) on a testnet fork.

Severity assessment follows validation, using a standardized framework like the Immunefi Vulnerability Severity Classification System. This framework categorizes bugs as Critical, High, Medium, or Low based on impact and likelihood. For a token sale, a Critical bug might allow theft of all deposited funds, while a High bug could enable a denial-of-service that halts the sale. Consistently applying this framework ensures fair bounty pricing and prioritizes the engineering team's response. Document your assessment rationale for transparency.

Once a bug is validated and graded, move to remediation. The engineering team must develop, test, and deploy a fix. This often involves a smart contract upgrade or a patch to the sale website's frontend logic. All fixes should undergo a re-audit before being deployed to production. Communicate progress to the researcher; silence leads to frustration. After deployment, confirm the fix resolves the issue and does not introduce new vulnerabilities, closing the loop on the security incident.

The final stage is payout and disclosure. After the fix is confirmed live, process the bounty payment according to the severity-based reward table published in your program terms. Use the agreed-upon cryptocurrency for payment. Then, coordinate with the researcher on disclosure. Some programs allow immediate public disclosure, while others have a 30-90 day embargo to allow all users to upgrade. A smooth payout process builds trust and encourages researchers to report to your program again in the future.

To launch your bug bounty program, start by formalizing a scope and policy document. Clearly define which components of your sale infrastructure are in-scope (e.g., smart contracts, frontend dApps, backend APIs, token distribution mechanisms) and which are out-of-scope. Specify reward tiers based on severity using the CVSS framework, with bounties for critical vulnerabilities typically ranging from $5,000 to $100,000+ for established protocols. Publish this policy on a dedicated security page, like those used by Immunefi or HackerOne.

Next, integrate your program with your development workflow. Establish a secure, private channel for vulnerability reports, such as a dedicated email or a platform like Immunefi. Create an internal triage process involving your lead developers and security advisors to validate submissions. Ensure you have a disclosure policy—typically a 90-day coordinated disclosure—that gives researchers time to verify your fix before public announcement. Automate alerting so that new reports immediately notify your core team.

For ongoing management, budget for bounty payouts as a recurring operational expense. Track metrics like mean time to response, resolution rate, and total rewards paid. Engage with the researcher community on platforms like Cantina or Secureum to build credibility. Remember, a bug bounty complements, but does not replace, formal audits and internal security reviews. It is a critical layer for catching novel, complex vulnerabilities that automated tools and scheduled audits might miss in a live environment.

Your next steps should include: 1) Finalizing and publishing your bounty policy, 2) Allocating a minimum initial budget (e.g., $50,000 for a new project), 3) Running a private, invite-only program with trusted researchers before a public launch, and 4) Scheduling a post-mortem review after the first major vulnerability is resolved to refine your processes. Continuous improvement is key to maintaining a resilient sale infrastructure.