Penetration testing articles

Common Mistakes in Penetration Testing Reports and How to Avoid Them

Penetration testing (pentesting) reports are critical documents that communicate findings, risks, and recommendations to stakeholders. However, many reports suffer from common mistakes that can reduce their effectiveness. This article highlights these pitfalls and provides guidance on how to avoid them.

1. Lack of Clear Executive Summary

Mistake:

Many reports dive straight into technical details without providing a high-level overview for executives and decision-makers.

How to Avoid It:

  • Include a concise executive summary that outlines key findings, overall risk assessment, and recommended actions.
  • Use non-technical language to ensure clarity for stakeholders without security expertise.

2. Poorly Structured Reports

Mistake:

A disorganised report can make it difficult for readers to understand the findings and take appropriate action.

How to Avoid It:

  • Use a clear, logical structure:
    • Executive Summary
    • Methodology
    • Findings (Categorised by Severity)
    • Remediation Recommendations
    • Appendices (Technical Details, Logs, Scripts, etc.)
  • Ensure consistency in formatting, headings, and terminology.

3. Overly Technical or Jargon-Heavy Language

Mistake:

Some reports are written in highly technical language without considering the audience, which may include non-technical stakeholders.

How to Avoid It:

  • Tailor the language to the audience—technical details for security teams, plain language for executives.
  • Include a glossary for uncommon terms and acronyms.

4. Missing or Incomplete Risk Assessments

Mistake:

Simply listing vulnerabilities without assessing their impact and likelihood leaves stakeholders without a clear understanding of risk.

How to Avoid It:

  • Use a recognised risk assessment methodology (e.g., CVSS, OWASP Risk Rating Methodology).
  • Clearly define risk levels (e.g., Low, Medium, High, Critical) based on likelihood and impact.

5. Lack of Context for Findings

Mistake:

Findings are often presented without sufficient context, making it unclear why they matter.

How to Avoid It:

  • Provide real-world examples of how vulnerabilities could be exploited.
  • Include potential business impacts (e.g., data breaches, regulatory fines, reputational damage).

6. Generic or Unactionable Recommendations

Mistake:

Recommending generic fixes without considering feasibility or alternative solutions.

How to Avoid It:

  • Provide specific, actionable remediation steps tailored to the organisation’s environment.
  • Offer alternative mitigation strategies if immediate remediation is not feasible.

7. Failing to Validate Fixes

Mistake:

Some reports list vulnerabilities but fail to confirm whether previous issues have been successfully remediated.

How to Avoid It:

  • Perform retesting after remediation efforts.
  • Clearly indicate which issues remain unresolved in follow-up reports.

8. Not Addressing False Positives

Mistake:

Failing to verify vulnerabilities can result in false positives, leading to wasted resources.

How to Avoid It:

  • Manually validate automated scan results before including them in the report.
  • Clearly label suspected false positives and provide reasoning.

9. Insufficient Documentation of Testing Methodology

Mistake:

Omitting details about how tests were conducted can reduce credibility and reproducibility.

How to Avoid It:

  • Include a detailed methodology section covering tools, techniques, and testing scope.
  • Reference industry-standard frameworks (e.g., OWASP, MITRE ATT&CK, NIST SP 800-115).

10. Ignoring Compliance and Regulatory Considerations

Mistake:

Failing to map findings and recommendations to relevant compliance requirements (e.g., GDPR, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001).

How to Avoid It:

  • Align findings with applicable regulatory requirements.
  • Highlight compliance risks and provide guidance on meeting security standards.