How To Turn Pen Tests Into Real Security Improvements

Prioritize Findings By Actual Risk

A significant failure in pen tests is neglecting to include the context of the assets being evaluated during the assessment. While scanners and other tools provide risk ratings, they’re not necessarily legitimate, quantifiable risk scores. This can result in post-pen test efforts that spend too much time remediating risks that aren’t significant (say, due to compensating controls) and can also result in not spending enough effort addressing real risks. – John Linkous, Phalanx Security

Expand Testing Beyond Compliance Scope

Teams mistake compliance scope for security scope, testing only mandated systems. Avoid it by prioritizing business impact: Map critical data, revenue dependencies, connected vendors, cloud assets and likely attack paths, then test the exposures whose failure would cause the greatest harm. – Michelle Drolet, Towerwall, Inc.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Map Vulnerabilities To Attack Paths

The mistake is treating a pen test as a list of vulnerabilities instead of a map of attack paths. Closing individual findings may satisfy an audit while leaving the underlying weakness intact. Teams should trace root causes, fix the control failures that enabled the path, and retest to prove the attacker’s route is actually gone. – Swati Deepak Kumar (Nema), Citigroup

Retest To Verify Fixes Hold

A clean pen test report can create false confidence. In my experience, the real question isn’t, “Did we fix the finding?” but, “Could we re-create the same weakness tomorrow?” Retesting and feeding root causes into engineering practices turns penetration testing from evidence of compliance into evidence of resilience. – Prajkta Waditwar, Box Inc.

Turn Findings Into A Learning Loop

The biggest mistake is treating findings as a checklist instead of a learning loop. A pen test creates value only when teams trace root causes, fix patterns and improve architecture, not just close tickets. The goal is not to pass the test. It’s to become harder to break. – Rohit Muthyala, ZoomInfo Technologies Inc.

Test Unknowns, Not Just Fixable Issues

Scoping the test to what the team already knows how to fix is one mistake. Cryptographic posture gets excluded from most engagements because nobody wants a finding they cannot close before the next audit, so the test never asks which algorithms are running or whether they can be swapped. Scope to your unknowns instead and accept that a useful pen test produces findings you cannot remediate this quarter. – J Nathaniel Ader, Qtonic Quantum Corp.

Build Scope Around Business Risk

One big mistake is scoping the pen test only to what a framework or auditor demands instead of to your real attack surface and business‑critical risks. Avoid it by leading with a risk‑based threat model, involving ops and engineering in scoping, and then tying findings to owners, remediation timelines and mandatory retests. – Nagesh Nama, xLM Continuous Intelligence

Treat The Report As A Starting Point

One mistake is treating the pen test report as the finish line. The real value comes after the test, when teams fix what was found, retest the environment and look for repeat weaknesses in the way software is built, monitored and defended. A good pen test should change team behavior, not just give everyone another report to file before the next audit. – Jay Bavisi, EC-Council

Test Against Current Threats

The mistake is testing against stale threats. A pen test becomes a checkbox exercise when it tests last year’s scenario instead of what attackers are doing right now. We see organizations pass and get a list of fixes, and half of them have nothing to do with real, current risk. For true business impact, visibility into which vectors keep resurfacing case after case is what should drive the test. – Ryan Ikeler, MOXFIVE

Replace Annual Checks With Continuous Testing

Treating a penetration test as a yearly checkbox is a mistake. A penetration test isn’t the outcome; reduced exploitable risk is, and that only comes from continuous testing and validated findings. – Eoin Keary, Edgescan

Turn Exploits Into Regression Tests

The mistake is treating a remediated exploit as history. Every successful attack path should become a permanent regression test owned by the control team and run after material changes. That converts pen testing from episodic assurance into institutional memory. If the same path can reappear unnoticed, the organization learned nothing. – Rishi Katdare, Amazon Web Services

Bring Security And Engineering Together

Is pen testing meant to make you better or to punish a part of the organization? When security and engineering work together, everyone wins—better outcomes, stronger armor, updated processes. Auditors and finance don’t operate at arm’s length; they build on trust and mutual respect. We should learn from that. – Jeff Schmidt, ECI

Eliminate Whole Classes Of Weakness

The greatest missed opportunity is treating each vulnerability as an isolated defect. A pen test should reveal the engineering assumptions, architectural patterns and control failures that made exploitation possible. Mature teams use those findings to eliminate entire classes of weakness across the system and feed what they learn back into design, development and threat modeling. – Yinglian Xie, DataVisor

Test How Authority Can Be Abused

Too often, teams scope the pen test to prove controls exist, not to expose how authority can be abused. A good test should follow real authority pathways: service accounts, inherited roles, API tokens, admin groups and revocation gaps. Avoid checkbox remediation by asking what changed structurally after the test. If the same authority still exists, the risk probably does too. – Craig Davies, Gathid

Assign Owners Before Closing Findings

The mistake is treating a pen test like a hotel inspection: Hide the broken lock, pass the checklist and reopen the lobby. Real improvement starts when every finding gets an owner, deadline and retest tied to business risk. No closure until the attacker’s path is actually gone. – Joel Frenette, TravelFun.ai

Test Recovery And Support Workflows

Teams often test the front door but exclude account recovery and support workflows. Those are routes an attacker may try when authentication resists them. Include authorized social engineering and recovery scenarios, then verify whether staff check identity, escalate doubt and record exceptions. A secure login means little if a phone call can quietly undo it. – Mani Padisetti, Almost Magic Tech Lab

Include Emerging AI Workloads In Scope

The mistake is scoping the pen test around the architecture you had instead of the one you’re building now. Enterprises are spinning up AI agents, MCP servers and new integration points, and none of that is in the test scope because it’s experimental. Meanwhile, agents are touching production data. If your test doesn’t cover how your AI workloads access, store and govern data, you’re testing a system that no longer exists. – Gopi Duddi, Couchbase, Inc.

Reserve Resources For Remediation

Teams often book the pen test before reserving a single engineering hour to act on it. The report then arrives as unplanned work, loses every priority fight and becomes audit evidence. Before testing begins, fund a remediation sprint, name the executives who can accept residual risk, and define escalation dates. The calendar and budget should prove the organization is ready to change before the tester proves what must change. Reserved capacity proves remediation is real. – Jagadish Gokavarapu, Wissen Infotech

Hunt For The Same Weakness Elsewhere

A pen test becomes theater when teams celebrate closing findings without asking whether the same attack path still exists elsewhere. Fixing one vulnerable endpoint proves little if the design pattern survives across dozens more. For every finding, teams should identify the enabling pattern, search for its siblings and change the guardrail that allowed it. Security improves when one finding prevents the next 10. – Nirmal Jingar, Wayfair

Trace Findings Back To Root Causes

A common mistake is treating a pen test as a pass-fail event: fixing the listed findings, filing the report and moving on. Teams should use the results to identify root causes, validate remediation and improve controls across similar systems. The real value comes from reducing exploitable attack paths, preventing repeat weaknesses and strengthening defenses across the environment. – Grayson Milbourne, OpenText