The problem with bug bounties is they are one-sided, against the researcher. The conditions of bounties typically stipulate that any attempt at negotiation can be interpreted as extortion, so it is either take it or leave it.
With their first bugs, researchers are entirely unknown quantities to the company. Stating, "I have a critical zero-day, but I won't tell you what it is until you pay me $BUCKS," clearly won't work.
A reliable escrow service, to whom the researcher can provide the exploit and the company can provide $BUCKS, offers insurance to both parties. If the exploit is not as described, the researcher loses the exploit entirely and gets no $BUCKS, but if the exploit is as described, the company cannot renege on the deal.
(Edit, addressing the direct question more-clearly: perhaps what is necessary to avoid the perception (and reality) of extortion is the emergence of accepted professional understanding for assessing the value of exploits. Without such a system, there will always be a strong incentive pushing people in the direction of blackhat work.)
From their website [1]:
> "We pay BIG bounties, not bug bounties"
The first case would get you likely in trouble. The second case would routinely cause a further review in any decent program, and if there's any merit to it, you get a higher bounty.
Nobody is forced to participate in any bug bounty program. If people feel the reward is too low, they should not partake.
Hello Strawman!
> The second case would routinely cause a further review in any decent program
We literally just read a example of how a big corp responds to #2. Do you think it was a 1 of?
This blog post seems a bit one-sided and doesn't correlate to the facts that I have heard. I wasn't there at the time being so I don't know the truth. But that blog post seems not quite 100% to be it.
What I have seen, however, in the past years, is that some people omit facts or misrepresent things to get some press. So I am quite a cynic on blog posts like this :-)
That's highly dependent on the individuals and the company doing the bounty. It's incredibly reasonable that people are suspicious of the process, when it is opaque as it is, and the disparity in negotiating power being the company and the person submitting the bug.
My personal experience is the FB bug bounty process has been generally positive, but inconsistent at times in the graded severity of issues and transparency of the decisions being made. I've clearly presented my case, and asked for additional information, but not gotten very far. My only real option in response is in how I allocate my time.
Having reports and payout amounts be permanently hidden results in stories like this being the only insight to the process.
Unless you're saying they've been tampered with, or that there was additional communication in between that he omitted, it seems pretty clear that this is not a professional way to handle communications.
As soon as you do that, you venture into dangerous territory. Companies are required to investigate claims of breaches seriously. And as soon as something like this is escalated, it may be out of the Information Security team's hands to decide the next steps.