BugRater
Early access: the directory is still filling out, and every rating here is a reported experience.
← The brief
Published finding · Bugcrowd

$5,000 awarded on lululemon.

high paid resolved
01 · The record

Everything Bugcrowd published about this

Programme
lululemon In our directory, so it has reviews and a grade.
Platform handle
lululemon
Asset
Not published The platform did not name an asset for this entry.
Severity
high Bugcrowd rates P1–P5; this is that rating in HackerOne's words so the two feeds can sit in one table.
Award
$5,000 What the platform printed. Where a report carried more than one payment they are summed.
Found by
Withheld The platform did not publish a name. We store that as withheld and never guess.
State
resolved — the programme has fixed it
Accepted
14 August 2026 1 month ago. This is the date the programme accepted the finding.
First seen here
14 August 2026 When our sweep first read this entry. It says nothing about the finding, only about us.
Platform reference
63976fd1-d084-4737-8ce8-36c3741e7d2d
View the programme on Bugcrowd ↗ Bugcrowd publishes the acceptance, not the submission. There is no public write-up for this finding anywhere, and no page for the entry itself, so this link goes to the programme. Everything Bugcrowd did publish about it is already above.
02 · Is this figure normal

Where this award sits

A single large number tells you nothing on its own. What matters is whether this programme pays like this routinely or whether this was the one time it did.

#2 of 6 here
$1,850 this programme's median
$16,000 its largest published
#108 of 1,427 awards we hold

It is the 2nd largest of 6 awards this programme has published. At 2.7× the median, it is well above what this programme normally prints.

Every figure here is drawn only from awards a platform chose to publish, which is a minority of what gets paid. Read the median as "of the payouts made public", never as "what this programme pays".

03 · The programme

What else lululemon has published

See lululemon's grade and researcher reviews →

Where this came from. One row of a public platform feed, stored as published and never edited. We hold no report title, no write-up and no reproduction steps, because the feeds do not carry them and we do not go looking for them. A withheld name stays withheld; if a finder later asks the platform to un-name them, the next sweep un-names them here. Absence of an award figure is publication policy, not evidence a programme did not pay.