Repository navigation
NOTICE: Formal Escalation Regarding Security Report Handling & Improper Dismissal #34
Description
:
To the Suilend Core Team / Management:
I am opening this Issue to formally protest the unprofessional handling of a Critical Security Report submitted via your official channels.
The Situation:
I have submitted a detailed technical report supported by mathematical proof and a Proof of Concept (PoC) regarding a systemic risk in the protocol's core logic.
Instead of a technical review, the report was dismissed by the security representative using the "AI-generated" excuse.
This is a clear case of Researcher Manipulation. While previous reports may not have been accepted, using them as a pretext to dismiss a verified, high-impact vulnerability is a violation of Bug Bounty integrity.
The Conflict:
The representative claimed the identified behavior is 'intended,' yet this 'intent' directly contradicts the fundamental security and liquidity guarantees of the protocol. Dismissing a valid finding without addressing the underlying logic is a risk to Suilend’s users and lenders.
Requests:
Internal Audit: I demand a review of my report by a Senior Engineer or a Technical Lead who can provide an objective assessment.
Accountability: An explanation for why a verified technical proof was labeled as 'junk' to avoid triage.
Professionalism: I expect Suilend to honor its commitment to the security community.
I prefer to resolve this through proper channels, but I will not remain silent regarding the deceptive handling of critical security research. I am ready to provide the report ID and details to a verified team member for a fair re-evaluation.
Activity
VectorShieldResearch commentedon May 1, 2026
I am officially escalating a case of Researcher Abuse and Security Malpractice by the Suilend security representative.
After submitting a Critical Severity report backed by mathematical proofs and a detailed PoC, the representative chose to respond with unprofessional insults: 'I will no longer be responding to your ai spam... have a good day bye bye.'
This is a direct violation of Bug Bounty ethics:
Mathematical Proof Ignored: My report proves a deterministic failure in the liquidation logic. Dismissing it as 'AI spam' without a technical counter-argument is a cover-up for a critical flaw.
Deceptive Tactics: The representative is using personal bias to avoid triaging a high-impact vulnerability that affects user funds.
Message to Suilend Leadership:
Is this the standard of integrity for Suilend? Allowing a representative to insult researchers and ignore systemic risks to the protocol?
I have the full logs of this interaction and the technical proof of the vulnerability. I am requesting an immediate contact from a Senior Lead to handle this professionally. If Suilend continues to hide behind unprofessional representatives to avoid paying bounties for critical fixes, I will be forced to release a full Public Disclosure to warn the Sui community about the protocol's liquidation risks and your team's handling of security data."