Bugcrowd N/A for exposed active API token from historical source — worth disputing or correctly closed?
Hi everyone,
I submitted a report to a public Bugcrowd program (Lightspeed Retail / Ecwid scope) regarding an active historical API token exposure that allowed authenticated administrative API access.
How it was discovered:
While performing normal recon using waybackurls against in-scope assets, I discovered a historical endpoint response containing an API token.
What happened next:
- The token was still valid against the target’s live in-scope API.
- It allowed authenticated administrative API requests.
- I provided proof of successful live access.
The report was marked Not Applicable with the explanation that third-party indexed exposures (e.g. VirusTotal, Wayback Machine, Telegram, etc.) are considered external causes and not security risks originating from the program.
My confusion is that my intended impact was not the historical indexing itself, but rather:
- The credential remained active after historical exposure
- It granted live privileged administrative access
- It appears no revocation / rotation occurred
So my question for triagers / experienced hunters:
Would this still normally be considered out-of-scope simply because discovery originated from historical indexing?
Or could this reasonably be argued as a credential lifecycle / secret revocation failure instead of just “third-party exposure”?
If disputing this decision, what technical evidence would best support reconsideration?
Would you:
- Politely request reconsideration with stronger framing?
- Re-submit under a different vulnerability class?
- Accept closure and move on?
Any triager-side perspective would be appreciated.