How To Earn $1K+/Month Finding Information Disclosure - A Practical, Ethical Playbook

---

Disclaimer (read first): This article is for ethical, defensive, and educational purposes only. The techniques and patterns discussed are intended to help security engineers, authorized penetration testers, and bug hunters improve defenses and responsibly disclose issues. Do not use these techniques against systems you do not own or are not explicitly authorized to test. Improper use may be illegal.

---

TL;DR

Many high-paying, reliable bug-bounty wins come from information disclosure - leaked backups, forgotten .git folders, exposed config files, and misconfigured storage. These are often ignored because they are “boring,” but they frequently chain into critical impacts. This guide teaches a professional, ethical approach to discover, triage, and report such findings at scale - plus how defenders can stop them.

---

1 - Why information disclosure pays consistently

Most hunters chase flashy bugs: RCE, SQLi, or fancy logic flaws. Those are great when you find them, but they are noisy, require deep skill, and are highly contested. Information disclosure is different:

• Low effort, high ROI: A single leaked credential or DB URL can yield full compromise or immediate evidence of a critical issue.
• Scaleable: Many targets leak similar classes of files - so automation helps.
• High impact when chained: An exposed API key, backup, or .git repo often leads to downstream critical vulnerabilities that earn larger bounties.
• Human factors: Developers forget files, misconfigure backups, or leave staging environments public - these are repeatable mistakes.

Because the work is repeatable and relatively low technical risk, a focused, careful hunter can reliably earn steady income.

---

2 - The mindset: reconnaissance, not exploitation

The key mental shift is to treat bug hunting like digital reconnaissance with a purpose. You aren’t trying to break the app - you are trying to find sensitive information that shouldn’t be public. That means:

• Look for forgotten hosts and subdomains (staging, dev, backup).
• Search for config files and repo metadata (.env, wp-config.php, .git/, backup.zip).
• Triage cache and header leaks for signs of debug panels or environment variables.
• Focus on impact and context - show how a leak could be abused responsibly.

Above all: practice ethical restraint. Don’t download people’s private data - prove existence safely and report.

---

3 - Quick reconnaissance checklist (60 seconds to useful leads)

Before opening Burp, do a fast manual sweep. This habit finds many tickets quickly.

1. Header check - basic curl -I or browser DevTools to spot server, X-Powered-By, debug headers.
2. Common file probes - check for .env, backup.zip, wp-config.php, .git/config on the host/subdomain.
3. Subdomain discovery - find staging., dev., backup., internal., admin. subdomains.
4. S3 / bucket name patterns - check for obvious buckets named after the company.
5. Robots.txt and sitemap - sometimes they leak internal paths.

This quick sweep often surfaces promising leads for a deeper look.

---

4 - Smart automation (do more with less time)

Automation is not about blind scanning - it’s about filtering noise and surfacing interesting anomalies. The trick: tune for signal, not volume.

4.1 Principles for automation

• Filter by response characteristics (size, content fingerprints) rather than only status codes. Many default pages produce identical sizes that are noise.
• Focus on unique fingerprints like debug tokens, backup indicators, or known header artifacts.
• Avoid destructive automation; use non-invasive checks (HEAD/GET without brute force form submissions).

4.2 Example approach (conceptual)

A typical stack includes:

• directory discovery tools (e.g., ffuf, gobuster) tuned to skip common boilerplate responses,
• custom bucket wordlists,
• lightweight parsers to flag response bodies that contain keywords: DATABASE_URL, AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID, BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY, .git/, etc.

Note: In this article we avoid presenting exact one-liner payloads that might be misused. The important idea: filter on response size and unique content patterns to remove noise.

---

5 - High-value targets and what to look for

Not all leaks are equal. Prioritize findings that yield immediate impact:

1. Environment/config files (.env, web.config, appsettings.json) - often contain DB credentials, API keys, or secrets.
2. Backup artifacts (backup.zip, db-dump.sql) - may contain PII and credentials.
3. Source repository artifacts (.git/, .svn/) - can reconstruct code, revealing credentials and flaws.
4. Exposed dashboards (debug or profiler endpoints) - may reveal runtime environment details and secrets.
5. Public S3/Cloud Storage - misconfigured buckets with public read/list permissions containing dumps, user uploads, or logs.

When you find such artifacts, the immediate job is to prove presence and estimate impact - not to exfiltrate.

---

6 - Triage like a pro: evidence, impact, and chainability

A clear triage report makes your submission worth more. For each finding capture:

• What it is (file type, header, or endpoint).
• Where it’s found (URL or subdomain).
• Why it matters (DB credentials, private keys, backups).
• How it could be abused (direct login, pivot to internal assets, data exfiltration).
• Repro steps (non-destructive steps to show it exists).

Frame the impact: “This file contains a DATABASE_URL that, if valid, allows a direct connection to an internal database with PII.” Then suggest mitigation.

Always sanitize examples - crop or redact secrets when demonstrating.

---

7 - Reporting: frame, escalate, and suggest fixes

The difference between a $50 and a $500+ report is how you present the issue.

7.1 Structure your report

1. Title: concise and impact-focused. E.g., “Exposed backup.zip on staging subdomain containing DB dumps (PII)”.
2. Summary: one-line impact.
3. Steps to reproduce: safe, non-destructive steps to observe the artifact.
4. Evidence: screenshots with redactions, response snippets (no secrets).
5. Impact assessment: possible chain: leaked DB → credentials → internal admin panel.
6. Suggested fix: remove public access, rotate keys, tighten bucket policies.

7.2 Why context matters

If an exposed .git contains a config file referencing a cloud storage account, explain how that key could be used to access real user data. Vendors reward chainable, pragmatic findings more generously.

---

8 - Non-destructive proof-of-existence techniques

Responsible hunters should never steal or download private data. Use these safe proving methods:

• HTTP HEAD or range requests to confirm file existence without downloading content.
• Response snippet redaction: screenshot the page showing a filename or a snippet that proves the file exists, then redact secrets.
• Metadata observation: show headers or profiler pages that reveal environment variables names (not values).
• Controlled test assets: on your own assets, demonstrate the exact impact with reproduction steps.

The goal is to convince triage teams you found a real issue while preserving privacy.

---

9 - Chaining: from info disclosure to higher impact

Information-disclosure bugs get attention because they often lead to critical chains:

• Exposed .env → reveals DATABASE_URL → connect to DB (if allowed) or find credentials to pivot.
• Leaked S3 key → read backups or uploads → find credentials → take control of services.
• Reconstructed .git repo → reveal API keys or admin endpoints → targeted exploitation.

When you present a report, include plausible attack paths - responsibly and without providing exploitable instructions.

---

10 - Framing severity - how vendors judge value

Severity depends on data sensitivity, scope, and ease of exploitation.

• Low: public logs, directory listings of non-sensitive content.
• Medium: config files containing non-production credentials or service names.
• High/Critical: production credentials, private keys, accessible DB dumps with PII, ability to authenticate as admin.

Context shifts reward: an S3 key that leads to a sandbox is less than a key that gives access to prod storage.

---

11 - Ethics and legal boundaries

A few non-negotiables:

• Only test in-scope targets (bug bounty program or written permission).
• Never exfiltrate user data; prove existence safely.
• Respect disclosure timelines and coordinate with vendors.
• Be transparent if you used automation - disclose tool usage and rate limits.

Responsible behavior protects you legally and boosts your reputation with vendors.

---

12 - Defensive checklist for teams (what to fix tomorrow)

If you run an app or manage assets, check these high-impact items now:

---

13 - Growing from $100 to predictable income

To scale from opportunistic finds to a steady $1k+/month:

1. Build focused automation for discovery, but tune it to reduce false positives.
2. Maintain concise triage templates to speed reporting.
3. Target medium-size programs where recon leaks are more likely and triage is responsive.
4. Build a reputation: clear, helpful reports get better rewards and faster fixes.
5. Diversify - combine info-disclosure searches with other low-risk hunts like misconfigured auth, weak CORS, or open admin panels.

Consistency and good communication lead to repeat paydays.

---

14 - Common tools & safer usage notes

Experienced hunters use tools for speed - but always with ethical guardrails.

• Directory discovery tools can find hidden paths - use rate limits and filter by unique responses to cut noise.
• Repo reconstruction utilities can rebuild source trees - use only to confirm that a .git exists; don’t exfiltrate full code.
• Bucket scanners can enumerate public cloud storage - check policy and scope before probing.

When in doubt, pause and consider the least invasive method to prove the issue to the vendor.

---

15 - Example report template (sanitized)

1. Title: Exposed backup.zip on backup.company-staging.example.com containing DB dump header
2. Summary: A publicly accessible backup file appears to contain a SQL dump header. This file is accessible without authorization.
3. Steps to reproduce: (non-destructive) HEAD https://backup.company-staging.example.com/backup.zip - returns 200 with Content-Length. (Redact exact paths/filenames in public report)
4. Evidence: Screenshot of the HEAD response and redacted file list (no user data included).
5. Impact: If the backup contains production data, it may expose PII and credentials. Suggest immediate removal, rotate any keys found, and review backup handling.
6. Suggested fix: Move backups to private storage, require authentication, apply bucket policies, and rotate keys.

This format gets triage teams what they need quickly.

---

16 - Final thoughts: be thorough, be ethical, be paid

The most dependable bounties often come from the simplest places. Information disclosure rewards patience, pattern recognition, and careful reporting. Build a methodical recon workflow, focus on high-impact artifacts, and always practice ethical disclosure. Do that consistently and the quiet, reliable income will follow.

---

References & further reading

• OWASP: Sensitive Data Exposure Guidance
• Vendor bug-bounty programs’ disclosure policies (read before testing)
• Responsible disclosure best practices and coordinated vulnerability disclosure guidelines

---

Published on herish.me - practical, ethical guides for security practitioners and bug hunters.