VAPT Report: Sample PDF, Template, Format and How to Create One

What Does a VAPT Report Contain?

A VAPT report contains scope, methodology, findings, evidence, risk ratings, remediation guidance, and retest results. These 8 sections connect technical testing with developer action and management review. Each finding needs a clear path from discovery to closure.

The Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) recommends that security reports serve both executive management and technical staff. The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide treats reporting as a core assessment output.

A practical VAPT report contains the following sections.

The 8 sections above separate business risk from technical proof. That separation becomes visible in a sample document.

What Does a VAPT Report Sample PDF Look Like?

A VAPT report sample Portable Document Format (PDF) shows the document structure and the evidence expected for each finding. A useful sample includes both management-level summaries and developer-level technical detail. The sample needs enough context to explain every reported risk.

A sample PDF normally starts with document control and assessment scope. Subsequent pages present severity distribution, findings, remediation, and retest results.

The cover page uses this structure:

The findings summary uses this structure:

The sample becomes useful when each row connects to full evidence. A list without proof creates extra investigation work for developers.

The published Infinium LLP security engagement shows that reporting continued through remediation and retesting.

Teams reuse the same document structure across engagements. A practical template turns that structure into a starting point.

How Do You Build a VAPT Report Template?

To build a VAPT report template, create fixed sections for scope, findings, evidence, remediation, and retesting. The template reduces reporting effort without forcing every assessment into identical findings. Reusable fields improve consistency across assessment teams.

Use these fields for document control:

Use these fields for every vulnerability:

The tables above define the fields. A complete template with compliance mapping, remediation SLAs, and retest tracking is available as a reusable VAPT report template (PDF).

A fixed template controls presentation. Report format controls the order and depth of those sections.

What Is the Standard VAPT Report Format?

No single mandatory VAPT report format applies to every assessment. A strong format separates executive context, assessment scope, technical findings, remediation, and closure evidence. The final order matches the audience and engagement type.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 800-115 covers planning, conducting, analysing, and reporting technical security assessments. The NIST guide provides a recognised foundation for security assessment processes.

OWASP reporting guidance recommends clear separation between executive and technical content. One report serves both management and engineering teams through that separation.

A practical format follows this order:

1. Record document control details and confidentiality requirements.

2. Summarise the assessment outcome for management.

3. Define the exact testing scope and exclusions.

4. Describe the assessment methodology and test conditions.

5. Present the findings summary by severity and status.

6. Document each vulnerability with reproducible technical evidence.

7. Provide remediation guidance for each verified finding.

8. Record retest results and final closure status.

Severity needs a consistent scoring method. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) provides one recognised option.

The CVSS v4.0 specification scores vulnerability severity from 0.0 to 10.0. CVSS defines 5 qualitative rating bands.

CVSS communicates technical severity. Business impact still needs context about the affected asset and exposed workflow. That context becomes clearest inside one completed finding.

What Does One VAPT Finding Look Like?

One VAPT finding connects a verified weakness with evidence, severity, impact, remediation, and retest status. Developers need enough detail to reproduce the issue and confirm the correction. Reviewers need enough context to understand the risk.

The example below uses a path traversal pattern from PerfectQA's published Infinium LLP engagement. Client-specific confidential data remains excluded.

Vulnerability title

Path traversal identifies file access that escapes the directory intended by the application.

Finding ID: VAPT-001 Severity: High Confidence: Medium CWE: CWE-22 (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory) OWASP: A01:2025 Broken Access Control Affected component: File download API Status: Resolved after retest

Vulnerability description

The vulnerability exists when untrusted path input reaches a file operation without sufficient restriction.

A manipulated file reference reaches content outside the intended directory. The exact impact depends on accessible files and process permissions.

MITRE documents path traversal as CWE-22. CWE-22 guidance recommends strict input validation and path canonicalisation before access decisions.

Proof of concept (PoC)

A PoC proves that the weakness occurred under the authorised test conditions.

Scanner-generated alerts at medium confidence require manual validation before they enter the report. A false positive is a scanner alert that appears risky but does not represent an exploitable weakness. PerfectQA removes false positives through manual testing before recording any finding.

The report records the modified request, server response, response code, returned filename, and supporting screenshot.

Sample PoC evidence:

Request:

POST /api/FileDownload/GetFileContent

Parameter: FilePath

Attack payload: c:/Windows/system.ini

Observed result:

200 OK

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="system.ini"

Response body: [contents of system.ini]

Expected result:

403 Forbidden or a controlled validation error

The sample above uses a fictional path. The evidence format demonstrates reporting structure without exposing client data.

Business impact

Business impact explains what the verified weakness exposes within the tested environment.

A successful traversal exposes files outside the approved directory. Exposed content includes configuration data, application files, or system resources.

Remediation

Remediation explains the correction path without turning the report into a generic security checklist.

For path handling, use server-controlled file identifiers instead of user-controlled filesystem paths. Canonicalise paths before validation and enforce an allow-list. Run file operations with the minimum process privileges required.

Retest result

Retest status records whether the corrected build still reproduces the original weakness.

Sample retest result:

Retest date: 15 September 2026

Result: PASS

Observed response: 403 Forbidden

Original traversal sequence: Blocked

The PerfectQA VAPT testing guide explains how verified findings enter the final report.

A complete finding is the unit developers act on. The reporting process determines how those units become a reliable final document.

How Do You Create a VAPT Report?

To create a VAPT report, convert verified security findings into structured evidence, risk, remediation, and retest records. The reporting process starts after findings have passed technical validation. Every report entry needs a traceable source finding.

Follow these steps:

1. Define the report scope using the authorised testing scope.

2. Remove scanner false positives through manual validation.

3. Assign a stable identifier to every verified vulnerability.

4. Record the affected asset, endpoint, parameter, role, or component.

5. Capture PoC evidence that another authorised tester can reproduce.

6. Score severity using the agreed technical risk method.

7. Assign a confidence level based on how reliably the finding was confirmed.

8. Explain business impact using the tested workflow and exposed asset.

9. Write remediation guidance that gives developers a clear correction path.

10. Review the report for confidential data before distribution.

11. Retest resolved findings and record the final status.

The reporting workflow depends on verified test data. Raw scanner output does not provide the same assurance.

PerfectQA uses OWASP ZAP for vulnerability assessment, then manually verifies findings before reporting them. That workflow separates scanner signals from confirmed security issues.

Which Tools Support VAPT Reporting?

Reporting tools operate at 2 layers: scanning and report assembly.

Scanning tools generate the raw findings that feed into the report. Report assembly tools structure those findings into a deliverable document.

Scanning tools:

Report assembly tools:

Scanner output feeds into the report. The review process determines whether the report is ready for distribution.

How Do You Review a VAPT Report Before Sharing It?

Review a VAPT report for scope accuracy, reproducible evidence, consistent severity, confidential data, and retest status. A report is ready when each reader traces findings back to the tested asset. Final review covers document control and distribution restrictions.

Use this review checklist:

OWASP recommends protecting assessment reports because they contain sensitive security information. Access control and encrypted transfer protect that information during delivery.

Review quality matters because the report reaches developers, procurement teams, customers, or auditors. Each group reads different sections of the same evidence. Compliance requirements often determine how much of the report each audience receives.

Which Compliance Frameworks Require a VAPT Report?

6 compliance frameworks either mandate or reference VAPT reports as part of their security assessment requirements. The report structure changes based on which framework applies. Auditors look for scope, methodology, severity ratings, remediation timelines, and closure evidence.

OWASP ZAP generates compliance tags (PCI_DSS, HIPAA) for applicable alerts during scanning. Those tags map findings directly to the compliance section of the report.

Compliance mapping answers the auditor's question. Reporting mistakes weaken that answer, and 6 failures appear consistently across the industry.

What Are Common VAPT Reporting Mistakes?

6 reporting failures reduce a VAPT report from a security document to an unreliable list. Each mistake creates extra work for developers, weakens the report's value for auditors, or delays remediation.

1. Publishing raw scanner output without manual validation. Scanner alerts at medium or low confidence include false positives. Reporting unvalidated alerts forces developers to investigate findings that do not represent real vulnerabilities. Manual verification separates confirmed weaknesses from scanner noise.

2. Using inconsistent severity scoring across findings. Mixing CVSS versions, applying different risk models to different findings, or overriding scores without documentation breaks the prioritisation framework. One scoring method applies to every finding in the report.

3. Missing business impact on technical findings. A finding that states "Cross-Site Scripting detected on /profile" without explaining the business consequence gives developers no prioritisation context. Each impact statement connects the weakness to the data or functionality at risk.

4. Writing vague remediation guidance. "Fix input validation" does not tell a developer what to change. Remediation names the affected code, configuration, or component and provides a specific correction path with references.

5. Leaving credentials, tokens, or client data in the report. PoC evidence captures real requests and responses during testing. Sensitive data from those captures must be removed or redacted before the report reaches any reader outside the testing team.

6. Ending the report at "Open" status without retest evidence. A report without retest results leaves the remediation loop incomplete. Resolved findings need a recorded verification result with the retest date, observed response, and retester name.

The 6 mistakes above share one cause: treating the report as scanner output rather than a verified security document. Manual review, consistent methodology, and structured retesting prevent all 6.

How Is a VAPT Report Different From a VAPT Certificate?

A VAPT report contains detailed findings, while a VAPT certificate records concise assessment and closure information. The report supports remediation. The certificate supports evidence requests from customers, auditors, or procurement teams.

PerfectQA's VAPT certificate guide explains the certificate structure, validity, and issuance process.

A certificate does not replace the report. The two documents answer different review questions.

FAQs