Get a quote

Reporting and retest

How findings are evidenced, rated and written up, how the readout works, and how fixes are retested and recorded so a reviewer can see what changed.

6 min readStandards: CVSS v4.0 as an input to severity · CWE for weakness classification · OWASP references per finding (WSTG, ASVS, API Top 10)

Test areas

Evidence standard3 checks

  • Every finding confirmed manually
  • Request and response, account, role and tenant recorded
  • Synthetic or minimal data in evidence

Severity3 checks

  • Impact and likelihood assessed for this system
  • Written rationale per finding
  • CVSS vector where the proposal calls for one

Remediation3 checks

  • Specific fix and where it belongs
  • Related endpoints likely to share the flaw
  • Design changes that remove the class of issue

Verification3 checks

  • Original condition and obvious variants retested
  • Legitimate access confirmed after the fix
  • Ledger updated with status and date

Two readers, one report

A pentest report is read by two very different people. Your engineers need enough detail to reproduce and fix each issue. Your client’s or customer’s reviewer needs to know, in a minute, what was tested, what was found and what is now fixed. The report is structured for both: a short summary and scope record at the front, detailed findings in the middle and a verification ledger at the end. The sample report annotates why each section exists.

The evidence standard

Every finding is confirmed by hand. Automated tool output that could not be confirmed is not reported as a finding. Each finding records the asset, the account, role and tenant used, the request, the part of the response that proves the problem, and the condition that makes it a problem. Evidence is kept to the minimum needed, using synthetic data where possible.

Severity with a rationale

Severity combines impact and likelihood for your system, and each rating comes with a sentence or two explaining it. CVSS v4.0 vectors are included where the proposal asks for them and inform the rating, but they do not decide it. The same weakness can deserve different severities in different products, and the rationale lets your team challenge a rating constructively.

Remediation

Each finding has a specific fix: where the check belongs, what it should compare and which related endpoints are likely to share the flaw. Where one design change would close several findings, the report says so.

Readout

After the report is issued, we walk through it with the engineers who will fix the issues. Findings come first, background later. Questions about reproduction and priorities are answered here, and any disagreements about severity are discussed and recorded.

Retest and the verification ledger

When fixes are ready, we retest the original condition and the obvious variants, and confirm that legitimate access still works. Each finding’s status (verified fixed, fix pending or accepted risk) is recorded in the verification ledger with the date, and a new report version is issued. Retest rounds and timing are agreed in the proposal.

Sharing the report

Reports are written to be shared with clients, customers and auditors. Who receives the report, and in what form, is agreed before testing starts. A report is evidence of testing at a point in time; it is not a certification, and it does not claim that no other issues exist.

What this chapter does not cover

  • A report reflects the system during the test window; later changes need a new test or retest.
  • Retest rounds and timing are those agreed in the proposal.
  • A report is testing evidence, not an attestation or certification.

Get a fixed quote for your release.

A short form about the product and the deadline. We reply with scoping questions, then a fixed written quote.