Curl Creator Considers Scrapping Bug Bounty Program to Combat AI-Generated Spam

The maintainer of one of the internet's most widely-used tools is taking a stand against low-quality AI submissions that are overwhelming security researchers and wasting valuable resources.

Daniel Stenberg, the creator and lead maintainer of curl—the command-line tool used by millions of developers worldwide—is seriously considering eliminating bug bounty rewards to combat the surge of AI-generated "slop" submissions that are plaguing the project's security reporting system.

The announcement, made on Stenberg's blog and social media channels, highlights a growing problem across the open-source ecosystem: artificial intelligence tools are being used to mass-generate low-quality bug reports, feature requests, and security vulnerability claims that consume maintainer time while providing little to no value.

The Scale of the Problem

Curl, which powers everything from mobile apps to enterprise software and is estimated to be installed on over 20 billion devices globally, has long operated a responsible disclosure program that rewards security researchers for finding legitimate vulnerabilities. However, Stenberg reports that the quality of submissions has dramatically declined since the widespread adoption of AI coding assistants and content generation tools.

"We're seeing a flood of reports that are clearly AI-generated," Stenberg explained in a recent blog post. "These aren't just low-quality submissions—they're often completely fabricated vulnerabilities or rehashes of previously reported issues that have been run through an AI system."

The problem isn't unique to curl. GitHub reported a 150% increase in automated issue submissions across popular repositories in 2024, with many maintainers of critical open-source projects expressing similar frustrations about AI-generated noise drowning out legitimate contributions.

The Human Cost Behind the Code

For Stenberg, who has maintained curl for over 25 years largely as a volunteer effort, the increasing volume of AI-generated submissions represents a fundamental shift in how the open-source community operates. Each bogus report requires time to investigate, reproduce, and ultimately dismiss—time that could be spent on legitimate development work.

"I spend hours every week triaging reports that a human would immediately recognize as nonsense," Stenberg noted. "But because they're formatted like legitimate security reports and use technical language, I have to treat them seriously until I can definitively prove they're false."

The curl project currently offers monetary rewards ranging from $100 to $500 for valid security vulnerabilities, depending on their severity. While these amounts are modest compared to corporate bug bounty programs, they represent a significant expense for a project that relies primarily on volunteer contributions and donations.

Industry-Wide Implications

Stenberg's contemplation of eliminating bug bounties entirely reflects a broader tension in the tech industry about AI's impact on collaborative development. While AI tools have proven valuable for legitimate development tasks, their misuse is creating new categories of spam that traditional filtering methods struggle to address.

Security researchers have expressed concern that eliminating bug bounty programs could reduce the incentive for legitimate vulnerability discovery. However, others argue that the current system's corruption by AI-generated submissions is already undermining its effectiveness.

"The irony is that by trying to game the system with AI, bad actors are potentially destroying a mechanism that actually helps improve security," said Dr. Sarah Chen, a cybersecurity researcher at Stanford University who has submitted legitimate reports to various open-source projects.

Looking for Solutions

Rather than immediately eliminating the bug bounty program, Stenberg is exploring alternative approaches. These include implementing stricter verification requirements, requiring proof-of-concept code for all submissions, and potentially moving to an invitation-only system for known security researchers.

Some projects have begun experimenting with AI detection tools to filter submissions, though these systems often struggle with false positives and can be easily circumvented by determined actors.

The curl project is also considering partnerships with established security research organizations that could help pre-screen submissions before they reach maintainers.

The Path Forward

Stenberg's dilemma illustrates a critical challenge facing the open-source ecosystem: how to maintain openness and collaboration while protecting against automated abuse. His decision—whatever it may be—will likely influence how other major projects handle similar issues.

The situation serves as a reminder that behind every widely-used open-source tool are human maintainers whose time and energy are finite resources. As AI continues to reshape software development, the community must find ways to harness its benefits while protecting the volunteer-driven culture that makes open source possible.

For now, curl users and security researchers await Stenberg's final decision, hoping that whatever solution emerges will preserve both the project's security and its collaborative spirit.