Penetration tests are a foundation of organizational risk assessment. But what happens when the reports generated are bloated, repetitive, or disconnected from business logic?
In a recent fireside webinar hosted by Sandeep Kamble, Founder & CTO at SecureLayer7 and Sensfrx, three cybersecurity leaders – Shobhit Mehta, Chief of Staff, Security Strategy & Innovation, Headspace. Dr.-Ing. Mario Heiderich, renowned security researcher and founder of Cure53; and Sandeep Kamble himself – unpacked the evolving challenges surrounding penetration testing reports and security program alignment.
What unfolded was an insightful and highly practical conversation on vulnerability validation, contextual risk analysis, and how collaboration – not just compliance – drives true security maturity.
Key Takeaways
- Validate findings internally before escalating to engineering
- Vet pentesters based on domain fit, scope, and maturity
- Assess each finding in context – business logic matters
- Treat findings as collaborative conversations, not final verdicts
- Document rejections clearly with rationale and context
- Build and invest in a people-first security culture
The Problem with Pentest Reports: Quantity ≠ Quality
Shobhit opened the discussion with a candid observation from his first week at Headspace: multiple redundant findings within the same report – some copied verbatim across different pages. “There was no added value,” he said. “Just length for the sake of it.”
Dr.-Ing. Mario echoed this sentiment. “We often ask – why is this even included? Is it meaningful, or just filler?”
Too often, pentest reports are judged by size, not by substance. The discussion highlighted a fundamental disconnect between some testing vendors and the business stakeholders who rely on their reports for decision-making.
The Report Dilemma: What’s Worth Reporting?
The session opened with Shobhit recalling his initial observations when he joined Headspace: duplicate findings, low-impact vulnerabilities repeated across pages, and a general lack of business logic alignment. It’s a common pain point across organizations – how do you discern signal from noise in pentest reports?
Dr.-Ing. Mario highlighted this recurring issue. “Sometimes findings feel like filler,” he noted. “You wonder – does this even add value, or is it just padding the report?”
Sandeep, moderating the session, noted how this creates unnecessary friction for engineering teams and wastes valuable triage time.
The problem lies not just with the pentester, but with misaligned expectations, lack of context, and ineffective pre-engagement vetting.
Before the First Ticket: Validation is Key
One of the standout practices Shobhit shared was the internal validation loop.
“Before we even reach out to development teams, we validate every finding. This one step has drastically reduced noise and improved developer trust.”
Rather than acting on raw reports, his team first evaluates:
- Is the finding technically valid?
- Does it affect the business or users?
- What’s the appropriate severity?
Sandeep, reflected on similar pain points, recalling how organizations often rush to convert findings into tickets without understanding their context, only to face resistance or dismissal from product teams.
This helps avoid a common trap: flooding engineering teams with low-priority or irrelevant findings that waste time and drain morale.
Maturity Matters: The People Behind the Pentest
Dr.-Ing. Mario emphasized the need to evaluate not just the findings – but the people behind them.
He advocated for:
- Interviews with testers before engagement.
- Sending tester bios for transparency.
- Rotating vendors to benchmark quality.
“Not every tester is suited for every scope,” Dr.-Ing. Mario remarked. “Sometimes you have a great tester – but not for your application. ”Sandeep agreed, adding that establishing a collaborative relationship with testers improves report quality and long-term security outcomes.
The “It Depends” Principle: Context Is Everything
Throughout the session, the phrase “it depends” echoed repeatedly. Whether it was password complexity policies in education apps, public APIs, or missing headers – context determines severity.
For example:
- Password Complexity: In education apps, forcing complex passwords can create user friction without increasing security. Compensating controls (like MFA or account timeouts) might be more effective.
- Public APIs and Webhooks: Just because something is public doesn’t mean it’s vulnerable. Reporting these without understanding the architecture is misleading.
- Missing Headers: Often marked as low severity, unless they contribute to a real exploit chain.
As Dr.-Ing. Mario put it, “One header or feature doesn’t define your application’s risk posture. You have to consider the full architecture.”
AI, Automation, and Defensive Pen Testing
As organizations release AI-powered features, they must adapt their security approach. At Headspace, every AI-driven product goes through internal testing before external validation.
“Our pen testers don’t just check for flaws – they help improve prompts, training data, and business logic. It’s about defending proactively, not just reacting.”
This is a key evolution: pentesting is no longer just about breaking things, but about improving product resilience from the ground up.
Rejecting Findings (The Right Way)
What if the report contains 30+ informational or low-severity findings?
Shobhit’s advice:
- Don’t blindly reject. Seek clarification and rationale.
- Adjust severity when appropriate. Not everything is critical.
- Document everything. Transparency matters.
Dr.-Ing. Mario added: “Every contested finding should be enriched with notes. Future teams should be able to trace what was reported, contested, and resolved.”
This audit trail ensures no voice is silenced – neither the client nor the pentester.
A Framework? No, A Mindset
Sandeep posed a key question: Is there a standard checklist or framework to accept or reject findings?
When asked whether there’s a checklist to accept or reject findings, the consensus was clear: there’s no universal framework.
“Everything depends on your application, users, and risk appetite,” said Shobhit.
But one principle stands above all:
Invest in People
From understanding context to evaluating findings and communicating risk, people are the foundation of good security.
“You can buy all the tools in the world, but without the right people, you’ll never be secure.”
Conclusion
This fireside session made one thing clear – penetration testing isn’t just about vulnerabilities. It’s about validation, business alignment, and trust. Whether you’re a CISO, a security engineer, or a developer on the receiving end of findings, one lesson remains universal: context is king, and people are the crown.
