offensive-reporting

name

offensive-reporting

description

Penetration test and red team report writing methodology. Covers executive summary structuring (risk-led narrative for non-technical readers), technical finding format (title, severity, affected scope, narrative, reproduction steps, impact, remediation, references), CVSS v3.1 / v4.0 scoring with vector justification, OWASP risk rating, evidence hygiene (redacting credentials, hashing client data, time-stamping every action), screenshot and PoC artifact management, finding chain narratives, scope/limitations/assumptions documentation, retest evidence and remediation tracking, deliverable formats (PDF, DOCX, HTML, JSON for SIEM ingestion), client-customer-deliverable separation, and common report mistakes (over-CVSSing, undermining the triager, missing the 'so what'). Use at the end of an engagement when authoring a deliverable, when restructuring a draft for executive readability, or when establishing a reusable report template for a consulting practice.

Penetration Test Reporting — Professional Methodology

A great finding lost in a bad report is a wasted finding. Reports are the artifact the client pays for, the auditor reads, and the developer fixes from. Treat the report with the same rigor as the exploit.

Quick Workflow

1. Capture evidence as you exploit — never reconstruct after the fact
2. Draft each finding immediately while context is fresh; one finding = one numbered file
3. Build the executive summary last, after all findings are scored
4. Two-pass review: technical accuracy first, then read-as-CISO for narrative
5. Hand off with a retest plan and a JSON/CSV index for the client's tracking system

---

Report Structure (Standard)

1. Executive Summary             ← Last to write, first read
2. Engagement Overview
   2.1 Scope
   2.2 Methodology
   2.3 Limitations / Assumptions
   2.4 Timeline
   2.5 Team
3. Risk Summary                  ← Heatmap, finding count by severity
4. Technical Findings            ← One per finding, sorted by severity
5. Attack Narratives / Chains    ← Critical chains called out separately
6. Strategic Recommendations     ← Programmatic, not finding-by-finding
7. Appendices
   A. Tools Used
   B. Indicators of Compromise (for blue team)
   C. Raw Evidence Pointers
   D. Glossary

---

Executive Summary — The 90-Second Read

The executive summary is for the CISO, the GRC officer, and the board member. They read this and nothing else.

Structure (one page max):

1. Engagement context — what was tested, when, by whom (1 sentence)
2. Headline finding — the worst thing you found, in business terms (2–3 sentences)
3. Risk verdict — overall posture in plain language (1 paragraph)
4. Counts — number of findings by severity, in a small table
5. Top 3 strategic recommendations — programmatic fixes, not "patch CVE-X"

Words to avoid in the executive summary: payload, RCE, XSS, LDAP, SMB, kerberos, injection. Translate every one. ("An attacker could run arbitrary commands on the server" not "RCE via deserialization gadget chain.")

Words to include: Business impact (customer data, regulatory exposure, operational disruption, financial loss). Anchor every finding to a business consequence.

---

Technical Finding Template

## Finding ID — Short Descriptive Title

**Severity:** Critical (CVSS 9.8 — vector below)
**Affected Scope:** <hosts/URLs/components, with version where relevant>
**Status:** Open / Fixed in retest / Accepted Risk
**CWE:** CWE-89 (SQL Injection)
**OWASP:** A03:2021 — Injection

### Summary
One paragraph. What is the finding, why does it matter, what's the worst case.

### Background
What technology is involved and why this class of bug exists. Two paragraphs max.
Skip if obvious (e.g. don't explain XSS to an XSS shop).

### Description
Detailed walkthrough of the issue. The root cause, not just the symptom.

### Reproduction Steps
1. Numbered, copy-paste ready.
2. Include the exact request/response, redacted.
3. A reader with no engagement context should reproduce in <15 minutes.

### Evidence
- `screenshots/finding-007/01-payload.png`
- `requests/finding-007/initial-poc.http`
- `evidence-log.csv` line 142 (timestamp 2025-04-12 14:33:07Z)

### Impact
Concrete. Quantified where possible.
- "Read access to the entire customer table (~2.3M records)"
- "Authenticate as any user; verified for sample ID 1, 2, 999, 1000000"
- "Cross-tenant access — verified by reading data from acquired-tenant ABC"

### Remediation
Specific, actionable, ordered by precedence:
1. **Fix the bug** — exact code change or config flag
2. **Defense in depth** — secondary control (WAF rule, input validation)
3. **Detection** — log line / SIEM rule that would have caught the exploit

### References
- CWE / OWASP / CAPEC
- Vendor advisory if known CVE
- Blog posts only if directly relevant

### Notes for Retest
What you'd do to verify the fix. Specific request, specific expected response.

---

Severity Scoring

CVSS v3.1 Discipline

CVSS is a tool, not a verdict. Score it, then sanity-check against business impact.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H = 9.8 Critical

For every metric, justify the choice in one sentence:

• AV:N — exposed to internet (port 443)
• AC:L — no special preconditions
• PR:N — no authentication needed
• UI:N — no user interaction
• S:U — does not cross security scope
• C:H I:H A:H — full read/write/availability impact on the database

If two reasonable people would score it differently, document why you chose what you chose.

When CVSS Lies

CVSS doesn't capture business context. A "Medium" CVSS XSS in the customer support chat panel that authenticated agents use to handle PII is more dangerous than an unauthenticated "High" SSRF on a metadata-less internal service. Use CVSS as the floor, not the ceiling.

In those cases, score CVSS honestly and then add a "Business Impact Adjustment" paragraph that argues for higher reporting severity. Don't lie with CVSS.

CVSS v4.0 (where required)

CVSS v4.0 adds environmental and threat metrics that better capture real-world risk. Use it when the client mandates it (PCI DSS 4.0 trends this way) — otherwise v3.1 stays the lingua franca.

OWASP Risk Rating (alternative)

For web-app-only engagements where CVSS feels stretched, OWASP's risk rating (likelihood × impact across multiple factors) often communicates better.

---

Evidence Discipline

What to Capture

For every finding, every action:

1. Timestamp (UTC, ISO 8601)
2. Source IP (yours, including any pivot)
3. Target (host, URL, RPC interface)
4. Action (what request was sent)
5. Result (response, what you got)
6. Hash of any data extracted (so you can prove what you saw)

timestamp,operator,src_ip,target,action,result_hash,notes
2025-04-12T14:33:07Z,KA,10.10.10.5,app.client.com,SQLi probe ' OR 1=1--,sha256:abc...,initial detection

This is the audit trail. Clients with mature security teams will ask for it.

Redaction Rules

Before any artifact leaves your secure environment:

• Replace credentials with placeholders: <REDACTED-PASSWORD>, <TOKEN-A1>
• Hash extracted PII — never include real names, emails, SSNs in screenshots
• Crop screenshots to the relevant area; check for browser tab leaks (other tabs visible)
• Strip EXIF from images; auto-redact via exiftool -all= *.png
• Remove debug toolbars from screenshots that reveal client infrastructure paths
• Verify URLs in screenshots don't include session tokens

Storage & Chain of Custody

• Encrypted volume during the engagement (LUKS, FileVault, BitLocker)
• Per-engagement key, not a master operator key
• Wipe to client-spec at end of engagement (typically 30–90 days post-delivery)
• Retain only the report and a hash manifest of evidence, deletable on request

---

Scope, Limitations, and Assumptions

These three sections protect both you and the client. Be explicit.

Scope

• IPs / domains / repos / accounts in scope, with start/end of engagement window
• Excluded: third-party SaaS used by the client (they don't own it)
• Out of scope by request: physical, social engineering against staff, DoS

Limitations

• "Testing was conducted from the internet only; no internal network access provided"
• "Source code review was not in scope"
• "Production database mutations were avoided per ROE"
• "No coordinated downtime — testing windows were 22:00–06:00 UTC"

Assumptions

• "We assumed the staging environment mirrors production"
• "We assumed the WAF in front of app.client.com is the same as production"
• "Service accounts with admin rights were assumed pre-existing"

---

Risk Summary & Heatmap

Show, don't tell. A visual summary every executive can read in 5 seconds:

Severity   Count   Top Example
Critical     3     RCE via deserialization (Finding #2)
High         7     ADCS ESC1 → Domain Admin (Finding #11)
Medium      14     Stored XSS in customer support panel (Finding #4)
Low         22     TLS 1.0 still enabled on api.client.com (Finding #29)
Info        11     —

A simple bar chart or stoplight grid converts this to a one-glance summary. Put it on page 2 (after exec summary).

---

Attack Chains / Narratives

Critical findings rarely matter in isolation. The chain is the story:

1. Phishing email → user runs HTA payload (Finding #1, Medium)
2. Local UAC bypass via Token Manipulation (Finding #5, Low)
3. Kerberoast service account (Finding #11, High)
4. Crack TGS offline → service account password (Finding #11)
5. ACL abuse: service account has WriteDacl on Domain Users (Finding #14, High)
6. Grant DCSync, dump krbtgt → Golden Ticket → Domain Admin (Finding #15, Critical)

Total time: 4 hours. Detection points missed: 3 (see Appendix B).

Highlight chains separately because the combination often warrants higher severity than any individual finding.

---

Strategic Recommendations

Below the per-finding remediations, write 3–5 programmatic recommendations:

• "Adopt SAST in CI for Java services" (addresses 12 findings)
• "Roll out tier-0 admin model for AD" (addresses entire AD attack chain)
• "Centralize secrets in HashiCorp Vault; rotate hardcoded creds" (addresses 9 findings)

This is what the CISO presents to the board. Make it memorable.

---

Deliverable Formats

Format	Use
PDF	Executive read, formal record, contractual deliverable
DOCX	If the client wants to redact or extend
HTML	Internal portal upload, searchable via grep
JSON	SIEM / GRC tool ingestion (DefectDojo, Faraday, ServiceNow)
CSV	Quick import into Jira / Asana for tracking
Markdown source	The single source of truth that generates all the above

Build all formats from one Markdown source via Pandoc / a static site generator. Never maintain parallel formats by hand.

# Markdown → polished PDF via Pandoc + LaTeX template
pandoc report.md -o report.pdf \
  --template=client-template.tex \
  --pdf-engine=xelatex \
  --metadata=title:"Penetration Test Report — Client Co." \
  --toc --number-sections

---

Common Report Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
CVSS 9.0 on every finding ("over-CVSSing")	Score honestly; clients lose trust if everything is critical
Marketing language ("revolutionary attack")	Plain professional tone
Tool output dumped as evidence	Curate; show the relevant 5 lines
Generic remediation ("validate input")	Specific code/config changes
Missing reproduction steps	If they can't reproduce, they can't fix
Untimed evidence	Every action gets a UTC timestamp
Confusing identical findings	Group by class, list affected items in a table
Forgotten retest plan	Each finding includes how you'll verify the fix
Failure to separate scope from limitations	Scope = what we tested; Limitations = what blocked us
Treating informational findings as filler	Either drop them or write them well

---

Reporting for Bug Bounty (Different Audience)

Bug bounty triagers are time-pressured and skeptical. Adjust:

• Title: include the bug class + endpoint + impact in 80 chars
• Reproduction: a single curl command if possible, plus the expected vs actual response
• Impact: anchor to the program's threat model (read PII? auth bypass? cross-account?)
• Avoid: walls of text, screenshots without a request log, claims without reproduction

A good bounty report is read in 2 minutes and reproduced in 5. A bad one bounces with "more info."

---

Retest & Closeout

### Retest Summary

| Finding | Original Severity | Retest Status | Verification Date |
|---------|-------------------|---------------|-------------------|
| #1 | Critical | ✓ Fixed (verified) | 2025-05-10 |
| #2 | High | ✓ Fixed | 2025-05-10 |
| #5 | Medium | ⚠ Partially fixed — see notes | 2025-05-10 |
| #11 | High | ✗ Not fixed — finding stands | 2025-05-10 |
| #14 | Low | • Accepted Risk (client decision) | 2025-05-10 |

For each finding, include the exact verification request/response showing the fix. Without proof, "fixed" is hearsay.

---

Sample CVSS Vectors (Reference)

Class	Typical Vector	Score
Unauth RCE	AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H	9.8
Authed RCE	AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H	8.8
Stored XSS	AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N	5.4
IDOR (PII read)	AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N	6.5
SSRF (cloud meta)	AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N	9.0
Open Redirect	AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N	4.3

Use these as starting points; adjust per environment.

---

Tooling

Tool	Use
Pandoc + LaTeX	Markdown → polished PDF
Sphinx / mkdocs	Markdown → HTML portal
DefectDojo	Finding tracking, JSON export
Faraday	Multi-engagement aggregation
Dradis	Collaborative report drafting
serpico (legacy but still used)	Pentest report templates
Plextrac	Commercial reporting platform

---

Key References

• NIST SP 800-115 (technical security testing reporting)
• PTES — Penetration Testing Execution Standard, reporting section
• OWASP Testing Guide — reporting chapter
• FIRST CVSS v3.1 / v4.0 specifications
• CREST Cyber Security Incident Response and Penetration Testing reporting standards
• Source: https://github.com/SnailSploit/offensive-checklist/blob/main/reporting.md