News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by ailideex on Monday February 24, 2020 @09:58AM (#22404469)
We read the page, and even if your claim holds, it is still irrelevant because whatever you quoted is not the same as being a PCI-DSS approved scanning vendor. And even if it was, HackerOne did not perform any scans.

HackerOne offering PCI-DSS approved auditor approved challenges gets you nowhere towards the claims you made in your first comment.

To review:

1. HackerOne would have to be a PCI DSS Approved Scanning Vendor - they are not AFAICT, neither is the CyberNews research team that did the scan AFAICT.

2. HackerOne would have to have conducted the scan - they did not. The CyberNews research team did.

3. The scan that HackerOne did would have to qualify as a PCI-DSS external scan - which ... do you get the part that HackerOne did not do the scan here or not? And nowhere did the CyberNews research team claim they performed a PCI-DSS external scan.

Please at least try to make an argument for your claims

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by rasengan on Monday February 24, 2020 @10:06AM (#22404580)
“SATISFY COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Meet pentest requirements for PCI DSS, SOC2 Type II, and HITRUST compliance certifications.” [1]

[1] https://www.hackerone.com/product/pentest

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by ailideex on Monday February 24, 2020 @10:17AM (#22404687)
Can you remind me again why hackerone is relevant here? Who claimed where that they performed a PCI DSS external scan that failed?