Severity determination is made solely by FYERS based on this rubric and is not subject to negotiation. FYERS may reference CVSS scoring; however, final severity is determined based on trading-system context and regulatory exposure rather than CVSS score alone.
Additionally, the following conditions automatically reduce severity:
- Requires victim interaction + social engineering
- Requires prior credential compromise
- Requires device-level compromise
- Requires attacker-owned account only
- Limited to pre-auth informational disclosure
FYERS Bug Bounty Severity Classification
General Principles
All submissions are independently assessed based on exploitability, demonstrated security impact, reproducibility, affected asset scope, and compliance with the FYERS Bug Bounty Program. Examples below are illustrative and not exhaustive. Inclusion of an example under a severity category does not automatically qualify a submission for a bounty.
Theoretical attack chains, speculative impacts, or findings requiring prior compromise of credentials, authenticated sessions, phishing, malware, social engineering, or another independent vulnerability will not be used to increase the severity of a report.
CRITICAL Severity (Up to ₹1,00,000)
Definition
A demonstrated vulnerability resulting in practical compromise of customer accounts, trading operations, regulated customer data, or FYERS backend infrastructure.
Critical findings must be independently reproducible and must not rely on phishing, social engineering, prior credential compromise, malware, or victim interaction.
Examples
Account Takeover
- Authentication bypass
- Login + OTP bypass
- Password/PIN reset of another user
- Theft of reusable trading session tokens
- Complete authentication bypass
Unauthorized Trading
- Place, modify or cancel another user's orders
- Unauthorized access to Holdings
- Positions
- Funds
- Order Book
- API token compromise enabling trade execution
Regulated Customer Data
- PAN disclosure (unmasked)
- Aadhaar disclosure (unmasked)
- BO/DP ID exposure (unmasked)
- Large-scale PII disclosure violating SEBI or DPDP
Financial Impact
- Unauthorized withdrawals
- Server-side payment secret compromise
- Payment manipulation (server side)
- Settlement compromise
Platform Availability
- Trading engine DoS
- Market-hour disruption
- Order queue manipulation
Mass User Impact
- Broken Access Control exposing multiple users
- Bulk customer data extraction
Infrastructure
- Backend Remote Code Execution
- Cloud takeover
- Database compromise
- Administrative access
HIGH Severity (Up to ₹50,000)
Definition
Validated vulnerabilities affecting a single user that result in meaningful confidentiality, integrity or availability impact.
The impact must be practically demonstrated.
Examples
Sensitive Information Disclosure
- Pre-auth disclosure of sensitive customer information
- KYC stage disclosure
- Correlated customer identifiers
Availability
- Pre-auth account lockout
- OTP abuse causing account denial-of-service
- Single-user trading disruption
Access Control
- Viewing another user's profile
- Viewing another user's settings
- Viewing watchlists
- Viewing sensitive logs
Business Logic
- Workflow manipulation impacting trading
- Trading state inconsistency
- Authorization flaws with customer impact
Authenticated Client-Side Code Execution
- DOM XSS or postMessage abuse resulting in authenticated account compromise or demonstrable sensitive data exposure.
MEDIUM Severity (Up to ₹20,000)
Definition
Validated vulnerabilities requiring additional conditions or having limited customer impact.
Examples
Authorization
- Reading non-financial customer information
- Limited IDOR
- Non-critical Broken Access Control
Token Issues
- Pre-auth token reuse
- Signup/request_key lifetime issues
- Scoped token misuse without privilege escalation
Client-Side Injection
- Stored/Reflected/DOM XSS where arbitrary JavaScript execution is demonstrated but no authenticated account compromise is proven.
Business Logic
- Limited workflow manipulation
- Single-user data inconsistency
Publishable Keys
- Publishable payment/API keys only where accompanied by a validated security impact.
LOW Severity (Up to ₹5,000)
Definition
Validated security weaknesses with limited practical security impact.
Examples
- Validated server-side open redirect with no demonstrated account compromise.
- Low-impact authorization issue without access to regulated or financial data.
- Low-impact information disclosure requiring authenticated access.
- Minor business logic issue with demonstrable security impact.
- Security misconfiguration with proven but limited exploitability.
INFORMATIONAL / HARDENING (NO BOUNTY)
Definition
Observations, defence-in-depth recommendations, product improvements or deviations from security best practices that do not demonstrate an exploitable security impact.
These may be tracked internally but are not eligible for bounty.
Product Behaviour
- UI/UX issues
- Layout/rendering problems
- Long text causing UI overflow
- Client-side validation bypass without security impact
- API naming or response consistency
Security Hardening
- Missing security headers
- CSP recommendations
- MTA-STS
- CAA
- Referrer-Policy
- Permissions-Policy
- Cookie attribute improvements without exploit
- OTP flow consistency
- Signup token cleanup
Non-sensitive Information Disclosure
- Version numbers
- Build metadata
- Environment flags
- Debug messages
- Public OAuth Client IDs
- Publishable Firebase / Google / Razorpay keys
- Public configuration intended for client applications
Legacy Assets
- Deprecated endpoints
- Legacy documentation
- Sample applications
- Static content
- Beta assets
- Unused APIs
Rate Limiting
- Missing throttling without demonstrated brute force
- OTP resend observations
- Enumeration without measurable impact
Mobile Findings
- APK decompilation
- iOS binary unencrypted
- Debug classes
- Stack traces without sensitive data
NOT ELIGIBLE / NO BOUNTY
The following are not considered security vulnerabilities under the FYERS Bug Bounty Program.
Expected Behaviour
- Intended application functionality
- Business decisions
- Product workflows
- Client-side redirects
- Browser behaviour
- OAuth flows functioning as designed
Findings Requiring Independent Compromise
Reports where impact depends on:
- Prior credential compromise
- Authenticated session compromise
- Malware
- Browser extensions
- Social engineering
- Phishing
- XSS not reported as part of the same submission
- Any other independent vulnerability
Functional Defects
- Display issues
- UI overflow
- Form validation inconsistencies
- Client-side maxlength bypass
- Cosmetic defects
- Functional bugs without security impact
Unsupported Impact Claims
- Theoretical attack chains
- Speculative privilege escalation
- Assumed account takeover
- Hypothetical cookie theft
- Claims not independently reproducible