Disclosure SLA public
Falcon Finance's assessment for RD-F-176 — scored red on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
No disclosure SLA published. No disclosure channel exists (F175 = red), so no SLA can flow from it. Red: no SLA.
Detail #
No acknowledgment-time SLA (e.g., 72h ack) found on docs.falcon.finance, any blog post, or any linked security program. F175 = red (no channel exists). Per methodology template: red = no SLA published. Gray requires no disclosure channel — but methodology §Cat 14 states: 'gray = no disclosure channel exists (see F175)'. However per rubric convention, gray is reserved for 'not assessable'; the absence of an SLA where one is expected is a scored deficiency. Following Lombard reference pattern: red when no SLA published, regardless of F175 state. Falcon's case: F175 = red (no channel) + F176 = red (no SLA) — both fire independently.
Sources #
- DocsFalcon Finance documentation — no disclosure SLAdocs.falcon.finance — no SLA, no responsible disclosure policyretrieved 2026-05-12
Methodology #
Determine whether the protocol publishes an acknowledgment-time SLA for disclosed vulnerabilities (e.g., 72h ack).
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →