Report Structure
-
Executive Summary
- Introduction: Purpose/scope—what was tested, why, objectives
- Methods: High-level approach (e.g., PTES, OpenVAS, Burp Suite)
- Key Findings: Major vulnerabilities in plain terms—impact and risk
- Security Posture: Overall assessment and urgency
- Conclusion: Recap insights; Call to Action for prompt remediation
- Importance: Ensures non-technical stakeholders understand risks and next steps
-
Root Cause Analysis
- Identify underlying issues to prevent recurrence
- Examples:
- Physical Security Gaps: Unlocked server rooms → direct access
- Policy Non-Compliance: Weak passwords, credential sharing
- Insufficient Training: Phishing susceptibility
- Patch Management Lapses: Unpatched software (e.g., EternalBlue)
- OS Hardening Gaps: Unnecessary services/ports
- Poor Dev Practices: Lack of input validation → SQLi/XSS
- Outdated Protocols: SNMPv1/v2, Telnet, FTP in plaintext
- Weak Crypto: Deprecated ciphers instead of AES/RSA
- Benefit: Guides targeted mitigation and strengthens security
-
Report Components
- Executive Summary (for non-technical audience)
- Methodology: Frameworks/tools (OpenVAS, Burp, John the Ripper)
- Detailed Findings: Tabulated vulnerabilities, CVSS scores, exploitability
- Attack Narrative: Step-by-step test activities illustrating exploit paths
- Recommendations:
- Actionable fixes for each finding
- Address root causes (e.g., improve physical controls, update software)
-
Risk Scoring & Prioritization:
- Use CVSS (Low–Critical) to rank urgency
- Technical Impact: Data loss, downtime
- Business Impact: Financial loss, reputation, legal penalties
-
Definitions:
- Vulnerability: System weakness exploitable by threat
- Exploit: Method/tool using a vulnerability
- Risk: Likelihood of threat exploiting vulnerability × impact
- Impact: Consequences (financial, reputational, operational)
- Threat: Actor/event causing harm (e.g., hacker, malware)
- Mitigation: Steps reducing risk (patches, configs)
- Remediation: Fixing vulnerabilities (updates, policies)
- Attack Vector: Path for attack (phishing, brute force)
- Penetration Testing: Simulated attack to reveal weaknesses
- Zero-Day: Unknown vulnerability without a patch
- Encryption: Convert plaintext to ciphertext to protect data
- Firewall: Controls network traffic per security rules
-
Limits & Assumptions
- Scope: Only in-scope systems/networks tested; others may be unassessed
- Time: Fixed timeframe may leave gaps
- Resources: Budget, tools, and expertise limit depth
- Access: Restricted permissions can hinder testing
- False Positives/Negatives: Automated tool results need manual verification
- Environment Stability: Assumes no changes during test
- Authorized Access: Assumes testers have necessary permissions
- Attacker Simulation: Models a skilled but not elite attacker
- Limited Impact: Aim to minimize disruption, but some risk of interruptions
- Remediation Commitment: Assumes vulnerabilities will be fixed; may not occur
-
Special Considerations
- Reporting Considerations: Tailor technical depth for varied stakeholders; use clear structure, tables, figures
- Secure Distribution: Encrypt report; restrict access to authorized personnel
- Peer Review: Have a qualified professional verify accuracy and completeness
- Client Acceptance: Present findings, clarify questions; obtain formal sign-off (email or worksheet)
- Attestation: Provide evidence (screenshots, packet captures) validating findings
- Retesting: Verify remediation through follow-up tests; schedule based on remediation timeline; maintain client communication