generated: '2026-08-17'
method: searched
probe: true
source: https://elium.com/trust/controls
policy: []
policy_published: false
contact: [security@elium.com]
contact_url: https://elium.com/trust/controls
bug_bounty: null
finding: >-
  Elium publishes a security contact and a public security-controls page, but NO responsible-disclosure
  policy and NO bug-bounty programme. security@elium.com is presented as a general security-team mailbox
  ("handles vendor reviews, RFPs, audits, and architecture questions"), not as a vulnerability intake with
  scope, safe-harbour terms, or response targets. A researcher has an address to write to and nothing that
  tells them the rules. Recorded honestly: a reachable channel, an absent programme.
what_exists:
- {item: security contact, value: 'security@elium.com', source: 'https://elium.com/trust'}
- {item: public security-controls page, value: 'https://elium.com/trust/controls'}
- item: third-party penetration testing
  value: >-
    "Penetration tests are conducted regularly by independent third parties and vulnerability scans are
    automated. Findings are assessed and remediated per defined SLAs."
  source: https://elium.com/trust/controls
- item: penetration-test reports
  value: 2025 and 2024 reports listed as documents available on request
  source: https://elium.com/trust
- item: incident-response programme with acknowledgement/resolution SLAs
  source: https://elium.com/trust/controls
what_is_missing:
- No /.well-known/security.txt (RFC 9116) on elium.com or api.elium.com - both 404.
- No responsible-disclosure or vulnerability-disclosure page - /security and /responsible-disclosure both 404.
- No HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack or self-hosted bounty programme found.
- No stated scope, safe harbour, PGP key, or researcher response-time commitment.
false_positive_rejected:
  url: https://help.elium.com/.well-known/security.txt
  http_status: 200
  content_type: text/plain
  verdict: rejected
  reason: >-
    This is INTERCOM's security.txt, served because Elium's help centre is Intercom-hosted. Its own Canonical
    field is https://app.intercom.com/.well-known/security.txt and its contacts are bugcrowd.com/intercom and
    security@intercom.com. Crediting it to Elium would attribute another company's bug-bounty programme to
    them, so it is deliberately not saved and no SecurityTxt pointer is wired.
evidence:
- {source: 'https://elium.com/trust', http_status: 200, kind: security-contact, probed: '2026-08-17'}
- {source: 'https://elium.com/trust/controls', http_status: 200, kind: security-policy-page, probed: '2026-08-17'}
- {source: 'https://elium.com/.well-known/security.txt', http_status: 404, kind: absent, probed: '2026-08-17'}
- {source: 'https://api.elium.com/.well-known/security.txt', http_status: 404, kind: absent, probed: '2026-08-17'}
- {source: 'https://elium.com/security', http_status: 404, kind: absent, probed: '2026-08-17'}
- {source: 'https://elium.com/responsible-disclosure', http_status: 404, kind: absent, probed: '2026-08-17'}
recommendation: >-
  Publishing /.well-known/security.txt on elium.com pointing at security@elium.com and a short disclosure
  page would cost Elium almost nothing and is the single cheapest security-transparency gap on this profile.