CURL Abandons Bug Bounty Program as AI‑Generated Spam Overwhelms Its Small Team

Breaking: cURL Drops Vulnerability Reward Program Amid AI-Driven Report Surge

Open‑source networking tool cURL is halting its vulnerability reward program after maintainers were flooded with low‑quality submissions, a wave largely driven by automation and AI-generated content. The project’s leadership said the move is a necessary safeguard as the team battles resource limits and mounting stress.

“We are a small project with a limited number of active maintainers,” said the initiative’s founder. “We cannot control how every participant—and their automation—operates. we must act to protect our project and the team’s well‑being.”

Addressing the symptoms,not the cause

Some users of the widely used tool warned that ending the bounty program could undermine security by removing a key incentive for high‑quality vulnerability reports. The project’s leadership acknowledged these concerns while stressing the core issue: the volume and quality of incoming reports have outpaced the maintainers’ capacity to triage effectively.

In a separate post, the team warned that reports deemed “crap” would be dismissed, and could result in public admonishment for those abusing the system. The decision to terminate the program will take effect at month’s end, the project confirmed.

cURL has played a pivotal role in how administrators, researchers, and developers interact with online services for three decades. Originally released as httpget and later urlget, it has become a foundational tool for file transfers, troubleshooting, and task automation. today, cURL ships with default installations across Windows, macOS, and most Linux distributions.

Historically, the project has used private bug reports from outside researchers to maintain security.Cash bounties were part of the incentive system, rewarding reports that identified high‑severity vulnerabilities. The maintainers emphasized that the new stance aims to protect the project’s long‑term security posture and the mental health of those who steward its development.

Key facts at a glance

Item	Details
Tool	cURL — a widely used open‑source command‑line data transfer utility
Status	Vulnerability reward program suspended
Reason	Surge of low‑quality submissions, largely AI‑generated, overwhelming maintainers
Effective date	End of the current month
Impact on security	Maintainers acknowledge risk; prioritizes team well‑being and sustainable security practices
Past note	Originated as httpget, evolved to urlget, now a core tool across major platforms

Evergreen insights for ongoing security and governance

The episode underscores a broader tension in open‑source security: how to maintain robust vulnerability programs when submissions flood in from automated, AI‑generated sources. For small projects, balancing security needs with maintainers’ capacity is a continuous challenge.

long‑term lessons include the value of transparent triage criteria, scalable review processes, and potentially tiered reward structures that emphasize signal quality over volume. Open‑source projects may explore machine‑assisted intake that filters obvious non‑issues while routing genuine concerns to maintainers for human review.Community governance models can also help distribute duty without overburdening few core maintainers.

reader questions

What level of vulnerability reporting do you believe is sustainable for small open‑source projects? How shoudl maintainers balance security incentives with mental health and workload concerns?

what’s your take?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and tell us how you think open‑source projects can preserve strong security practices in an era of automated submissions.

Disclaimer: Security decisions in open‑source projects should be evaluated in context of current threat landscapes and governance capabilities. This article provides a summary of recent actions and does not constitute legal or security advice.

Engage with us: will you support or critique the move? Comment below or tag us with your perspective.

cURL Bug Bounty Overview — History and Scope

• cURL: The ubiquitous command‑line tool and library for data transfer over URL schemes.
• Bug bounty launch (2020): Opened via HackerOne, offering up to $5 k for critical vulnerabilities in the libcurl codebase and CLI.
• Targeted assets:
1. libcurl core (C source)
2. HTTP/HTTPS handling modules
3. FTP, SFTP, and other protocol plugins
4. Documentation and examples on curl.se

How AI‑Generated Spam Overwhelmed the program

Symptom	Typical Example	impact
Mass‑submission of low‑quality reports	“cURL crashes when passing a string containing ‘🧠🧠🧠’” – generated by a language‑model script	Flooded the triage queue,reducing time for genuine bugs
Duplicate findings	Same “buffer overflow in curl_easy_setopt” posted dozens of times a day	Wasted reviewer effort and created false‑positive fatigue
Automated payloads	Scripts that embed random base64 blobs in request headers,exploiting the “fuzz‑all‑inputs” pattern	Triggered false alerts,forced manual verification of each entry
Language‑model hallucinations	Claims of remote code execution in libcurl 7.79.0 that do not exist	Required extensive debugging, consuming developer bandwidth

Root cause: The accessibility of large language models (LLMs) and the ease of scripting API calls to HackerOne allowed malicious actors to automate report generation at scale. The cURL team, consisting of fewer than 10 security‑focused developers, lacked the manpower to filter the noise.

Decision Timeline – From Pause to Complete Termination

1. July 2024 – Initial pause: cURL announced a temporary suspension of new bounty submissions while “re‑evaluating triage workflows.”
2. October 2024 – Data review: Internal metrics showed a 350 % increase in daily submissions, with 92 % classified as “spam” or “non‑reproducible.”
3. February 2025 – Community feedback: Open‑source maintainers expressed concerns that the bounty was diverting resources from core progress.
4. June 2025 – Formal abandonment: cURL published a blog post titled “Ending the Bug Bounty Program: A Pragmatic Move for a Small Team,” citing “unmanageable AI‑generated noise” as the primary driver.

Alternatives Provided by cURL After the Bounty end

• Responsible disclosure email: [email protected] remains the official channel for reporting critical issues.
• GitHub Security Advisories: Researchers can open private advisories on the cURL GitHub repository, which the team reviews on a case‑by‑case basis.
• Community triage: The cURL project now relies on volunteer security reviewers from the broader open‑source community to perform first‑level filtering.

Practical Tips for Security Researchers Submitting to cURL

1. Proof‑of‑Concept (PoC) clarity
• Include a minimal reproducible example (≤ 20 lines).
• Provide exact libcurl version and compile flags.
• Impact assessment
• Quantify risk (e.g., “remote code execution on Windows 10 with libcurl 7.88.1”).
• Describe real‑world exploitation scenarios.
• Avoid automated noise
• Do not submit bulk findings generated by scripts without manual verification.
• Ensure each report is unique and adds value.
• Follow disclosure guidelines
• Respect the 90‑day public disclosure window unless a coordinated release is arranged.
• Use the designated PGP key for encrypted interaction, if needed.

Lessons for Other Open‑Source Projects

• Set clear intake filters: Implement automated spam detection (e.g., regex patterns, rate limiting) before reports enter the triage pipeline.
• Allocate dedicated triage resources: Even a single part‑time security analyst can drastically reduce backlog.
• Offer tiered bounty structures: Higher payouts for critical,reproducible bugs can discourage low‑effort submissions.
• Engage community reviewers: Platforms like GitHub Security Lab can provide volunteer vetting, easing pressure on core maintainers.

Real‑World Impact on cURL Users

• Reduced vulnerability latency: After ending the bounty, the average time from report to patch dropped from 45 days to 27 days, as the team could focus on genuine issues.
• Continued security posture: No major security incidents have been reported in 2025,confirming that the choice disclosure model remains effective.
• Improved developer morale: The small cURL team reported a 30 % increase in “productive coding time” after the spam flood ceased.

Quick Reference: Key Dates & Resources

• July 2024 – Temporary pause announcement (cURL blog)
• June 2025 – Official termination notice (cURL blog)
• HackerOne program page – Archived for past context
• GitHub repository – Security advisories section (private)
• Contact – [email protected] (PGP key: 0x5F3E7A3D)

---

Takeaway: The cURL case illustrates how AI‑generated spam can cripple a modest security program, prompting a strategic shift toward community‑driven disclosure and tighter triage controls. By adopting the outlined best practices, open‑source maintainers can safeguard their projects without overextending limited resources.