Reporting
What a vulnerability assessment report should include (with a template)
The sections every vulnerability assessment report needs, what goes in each, and the mistakes that make clients ignore them. A section-by-section template for MSPs and consultants.
Varaxon Technologies · · 3 min read
Write for two readers
A vulnerability assessment report has two audiences. The decision-maker (owner, director, IT manager) reads the first page or two and decides what gets budget and time. The technician reads the action list and appendix and does the work. A report that tries to serve both on the same page serves neither. The template below separates them.
The template, section by section
1. Executive summary
One page, plain language. What was assessed and when, the overall picture in two or three sentences, and the three to five actions that matter most with what each protects against. No CVE numbers, no tables of counts.
2. Scope
The networks, hosts or applications in scope, anything explicitly out of scope, the scan dates and who authorized the assessment.
3. Method
The scanner and version, the check feed date, whether the scan was credentialed, and how findings were prioritized. If you rank by known exploitation, say so and name the source (CISA KEV, EPSS, CVSS).
4. Prioritized actions
Findings grouped into remediation actions, in priority order. For each action: what to do, why it ranks where it does, the affected hosts and the evidence (detected version, check output, CVEs).
5. Remediation plan
Owners and target dates per action, agreed with the client. Link this to the client's remediation policy or a standard SLA matrix.
6. Limitations
Hosts that could not be assessed or were only partially assessed, findings without CVE data, checks that could not run and anything else the scan cannot support. This is not a disclaimer to hide; it is part of the result.
7. Technical appendix
Per-host and per-finding detail for technicians, including informational findings. This is where the scanner's raw output belongs.
What every finding entry needs
| Field | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Title in plain language | "Outdated Google Chrome" beats a plugin name |
| Priority and reason | "Known exploited (CISA KEV)" is a reason; "High" is a label |
| Affected hosts | So the technician knows where to work |
| Evidence | Detected version, check output, CVE list: how you know |
| Fix | The specific version, patch or setting that resolves it |
| Owner and due date | Turns the finding into work |
Mistakes that get reports ignored
- Opening with a pie chart of 400 findings by severity.
- Listing the same missing patch once per host instead of once per action.
- Calling a host or finding "clean" when the scan simply could not see it.
- Recommendations like "apply vendor patches" without the version that fixes it.
- No dates, so the client cannot tell whether the report is current.
Generating the report from a scan export
Varaxon Scan Hub produces this structure from an uploaded scanner export: an executive summary written in plain language, scope and coverage statements, actions grouped and ranked into six priority bands, the fixed version for each action where one is known, and a technical appendix tied to the scanner evidence. MSPs can add their own logo and name the client separately. Download a sample report to compare it with this template, or read the step-by-step export guide.
Common questions
Is a vulnerability assessment report the same as a penetration test report?
No. A vulnerability assessment report covers automated scan findings and their remediation. A penetration test report documents what a tester could actually exploit and how. See vulnerability scan vs penetration test for the differences.
Should informational findings go in the report?
Keep them in the technical appendix. They are useful context, such as open ports and detected software, but putting them in the summary buries the actions that matter.
Turn your next scan export into a client-ready report.
Run a free pre-flight check