Learn about report contents, executive summary, CVSS scoring, remediation priority, secure storage, sharing with auditors, attestation letters, and much more, through the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) below. Please schedule a consultation if you are looking for Penetration Testing for compliance or regulatory requirements or to comply with a global security standard..
Table of Contents
What is included in a penetration testing report?
Summary: A penetration test report is the primary deliverable of the engagement and must serve multiple audiences, executives, compliance auditors, and technical remediation teams, simultaneously.
A comprehensive penetration testing report includes six core sections: an Executive Summary (a plain-language overview of findings, risk posture, and business impact written for non-technical leadership), a Scope and Methodology section (describing what was tested, what approach was used, and which frameworks were followed), a Findings section (detailed descriptions of every vulnerability identified, including severity rating, evidence, exploitation path, and business impact), a Remediation section (specific, prioritized, and actionable guidance for fixing each finding), an Appendix (raw tool output, IP address lists, screenshots, and supplementary technical data), and a Risk Summary (a graphic or statistical overview of findings by severity, category, and affected system). The report should be delivered in a secure format, typically a password-protected PDF or an encrypted document, because it contains a detailed map of the organization’s security weaknesses.
What is an executive summary in a pen test report?
The executive summary in a penetration test report is a concise, non-technical section, typically one to two pages, that communicates the overall security posture of the tested environment, the most critical findings, and the recommended strategic actions to senior leadership who may not have a technical background. An effective executive summary covers the purpose and objectives of the test, what was tested and when, an overall risk rating or security posture assessment, the most critical vulnerabilities discovered (described in business impact terms rather than technical jargon), and a high-level remediation roadmap. The executive summary should be independently meaningful, a reader who reads only this section should understand what risk the organization faces and what it needs to do. It should not exceed two pages and should avoid technical terminology that requires security expertise to interpret. The executive summary is often the section presented to board members, C-suite executives, and cyber liability insurance underwriters.
What is a technical findings section in a pen test report?
The technical findings section is the core of a penetration test report, it documents every vulnerability discovered during the engagement in sufficient technical detail for the organization’s security engineers, developers, and system administrators to understand, reproduce, and remediate each issue. Each finding in this section should include a descriptive title for the vulnerability, its severity rating (Critical, High, Medium, Low, or Informational), the specific system, application, or IP address where it was found, a detailed technical description of the vulnerability, step-by-step evidence of exploitation (screenshots, command outputs, or proof-of-concept code), a clear explanation of the potential business impact, and specific remediation recommendations including patches, configuration changes, or architectural adjustments. Findings should be ordered from most to least severe, and each finding should be independently readable without requiring the reader to cross-reference other sections of the report.
How are vulnerabilities rated or scored in a penetration test report?
Vulnerabilities in a penetration test report are rated by severity to help the organization prioritize remediation. The most commonly used rating system is the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), which produces a numerical score from 0.0 to 10.0 based on factors including the attack vector, attack complexity, required privileges, user interaction, and impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. CVSS scores correspond to qualitative severity bands: Critical (9.0–10.0), High (7.0–8.9), Medium (4.0–6.9), Low (0.1–3.9), and Informational (0.0). Most penetration testing firms supplement CVSS scores with their own contextual severity assessment, because a vulnerability that scores Medium in isolation may warrant Critical prioritization in a specific environment due to the sensitivity of the data it exposes. Severity ratings determine remediation priority, Critical and High findings should be addressed immediately, while Medium and Low findings are prioritized in subsequent remediation cycles.
What is CVSS and how is it used in pen test reports?
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) is an open, industry-standard framework published by the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) that provides a standardized method for rating the severity of software vulnerabilities. The current version is CVSS 4.0, released in November 2023. CVSS calculates a numerical score from 0.0 to 10.0 using a formula that weighs multiple metrics: the Base Score (intrinsic characteristics of the vulnerability including exploitability and impact), the Temporal Score (factors that change over time such as exploit code availability), and the Environmental Score (factors specific to the organization’s environment). In penetration test reports, CVSS scores are used to communicate vulnerability severity consistently, allowing clients to compare findings across engagements, align remediation prioritization with industry standards, and demonstrate to auditors that findings have been assessed using a recognized framework. However, professional testers always contextualize CVSS scores: a CVSS 5.5 (Medium) vulnerability that provides access to a database containing millions of healthcare records may warrant Critical prioritization in practice.
What is the difference between the executive summary and the technical report in a pen test?
The executive summary and the technical report are two distinct sections of a penetration test report; each designed for a different audience. The executive summary, typically one to two pages, is written in plain language for non-technical executives, board members, and compliance officers. It focuses on business risk, overall security posture, and strategic remediation priorities, using terms like “significant data exposure risk” rather than specific CVE identifiers and technical vulnerability names. The technical report, which may run dozens to hundreds of pages for complex engagements, is written for IT administrators, developers, security engineers, and compliance teams who need detailed technical context to actually remediate the findings. It includes specific vulnerability details, exploitation evidence, reproduction steps, and precise technical remediation guidance such as specific patches, configuration parameters, and code changes. Both sections are required in a professional penetration test report, neither is sufficient alone.
How should a business prioritize remediation after receiving a pen test report?
Summary: Effective post-pen test remediation prioritization balances CVSS severity, exploitability, business impact, and operational feasibility to create a structured, time-bound action plan.
After receiving a penetration test report, businesses should prioritize remediation using a risk-based framework rather than addressing findings in arbitrary order. First, immediately address any Critical and High severity findings that are remotely exploitable and directly expose sensitive data, payment card information, protected health information, or provide system-level access, these represent the greatest immediate risk. Second, assess the exploitability of Medium severity findings in the specific environment, since some Medium-rated vulnerabilities carry greater risk than their CVSS score suggests based on business context. Third, schedule Low and Informational findings for the next planned maintenance cycle. Organizations should also address findings in the order that closes the most significant attack chains, a series of Medium findings that collectively enable a Critical-level breach may warrant higher priority than isolated Critical findings. Assign ownership for each finding, set specific remediation deadlines, and track progress in a vulnerability management system. Finally, schedule a retest to confirm that remediation was successful before closing findings.
What are remediation recommendations and how specific should they be?
Remediation recommendations in a penetration test report are actionable instructions for fixing each vulnerability identified during the engagement. A high-quality penetration test report provides specific, implementable recommendations, not vague guidance such as “apply security best practices.” For a SQL injection finding, a specific recommendation names the vulnerable parameter, recommends parameterized queries or prepared statements, references the specific code file and line number (in white box engagements), and may reference OWASP prevention guidance. For a network finding, a recommendation specifies the exact firewall rule change, configuration parameter, or patch version needed. Remediation recommendations should also include a short-term (immediate) action and a long-term (strategic) action where applicable, for example, immediately disabling an exposed admin interface while planning an architecture change that permanently removes the exposure. Organizations should be skeptical of penetration test reports that contain only generic remediation advice without specifics.
How should a penetration testing report be stored and handled?
A penetration testing report is one of the most sensitive documents an organization possesses, it contains a comprehensive map of exploitable vulnerabilities, successful attack paths, and system architecture details that would give a malicious actor a significant advantage. Reports should be encrypted at rest using AES-256 or equivalent encryption, stored in access-controlled systems with strict need-to-know distribution, transmitted only via secure channels (never via unencrypted email), and retained in compliance with the organization’s data retention policies and applicable regulatory requirements. Access to the report should be logged and audited. Organizations should be extremely cautious about sharing full technical reports with external parties, sharing only the executive summary or a redacted version in most external contexts, and providing the full technical report only to auditors with appropriate confidentiality agreements in place. Many organizations classify penetration test reports at their highest data sensitivity level.
Can I share my penetration test report with auditors, customers, or regulators?
Penetration test reports can be shared with auditors, customers, and regulators under specific circumstances, but the decision requires careful consideration of confidentiality, sensitivity, and the purpose of sharing. Sharing with auditors, such as a PCI DSS QSA, SOC 2 auditor, or government compliance reviewer, is often necessary to demonstrate compliance and is typically covered by confidentiality provisions in the auditor’s engagement agreement. Sharing with enterprise customers as part of a vendor security questionnaire response is increasingly common but should typically be limited to the executive summary or a summary attestation letter rather than the full technical report. Sharing with regulators in the context of a breach investigation or regulatory examination may be legally required. Organizations should review their penetration testing NDA and any applicable data sharing agreements before distributing any portion of a penetration test report to external parties.
What is a letter of attestation after a pen test?
A letter of attestation is a formal document issued by a penetration testing firm that certifies the test was conducted, summarizes the scope and methodology, and confirms the overall security posture of the tested environment, without disclosing the specific vulnerabilities identified in the full report. Organizations use attestation letters when they need to demonstrate to customers, business partners, regulators, or cyber liability insurers that a penetration test was performed, without sharing sensitive technical findings. Attestation letters are particularly useful for SaaS companies, managed service providers, and healthcare organizations responding to security questionnaires or procurement requirements. The letter typically includes the testing firm’s name and accreditation status, the testing dates, the scope covered, the frameworks applied, and a professional opinion on overall security posture.
Explore Blogs, Webinars and other Resources
Trusted by Reputed Companies
Accreditations and Associations
* Disclaimer: This list of accreditations is held by our team of employees and consultants.
What Our Clients Say
We used databrackets (formerly EHR 2.0) in our small medical practice for our risk analysis assessment to be in compliance with meaningful use. Their response was fast, the final report is detailed but simple and easy to follow. They were always available to answer our questions.
E. Compres
Pulmonary and Sleep Center of the Valley
I never miss the opportunity to learn something new …that’s why I am always registering to all free seminars offered on the web. databrackets (formerly EHR 2.0) happened to be the friendliest, comprehensive and up-to- date source of HIPAA Privacy and Security updates.
Alexandra V.
Community Healthcare Network
Today’s presentation was great! Thank you for sending the slides. My only feedback is that it would be fabulous to have the slides ahead of time so I could print them and take notes on the slides.Thanks for your time and knowledge today!
T.B., PM
Community Health Network
Particularly interesting was the flow chart on Administrative Simplification. I utilize all of the Security subcategories you list under the Security tile and appreciate knowing that I am hitting all of the relevant topics during my employee training.
Jessica B.
JD, CHC
I have re-worked our original risk assessment….We are using databrackets' (formerly EHR 2.0) Meaningful Use Security Risk Analysis Toolkit and it meets our needs. It was easy to use and I believe that it very beneficial to our meeting meaningful use.
Bill Curtis
Neurosurgical Associates Of Texarkana, TX
Information (webinars) presented by databrackets (formerly EHR 2.0) highlights some of today’s most demanding healthcare topics. The webinars help to direct those operating in today’s rapidly changing environment in the right direction.
Candace M.
Privacy and Security Officer, Springhill Medical Center
Our Growing List of Credentials
0
+
Assessments
0
+
Clients
0
+
Assessment Libraries
0
+
Years of Experience
0
+
No. of Staff Trained
0
+
HIPAA
0
+
SOC 2 Readiness
0
+
Pen Testing
0
+
ISO 27001 Certifications
0
+
Dollars Saved in Compliance Penalties