Certified: The Security+ Prepcast

No matter how advanced your scanning tools are, how well you prioritize vulnerabilities, or how quickly you patch them, your efforts will fall short if no one understands what is happening. That is why vulnerability reporting is one of the most important—and most overlooked—steps in the vulnerability management lifecycle. Good reporting bridges the gap between technical findings and organizational action. It brings clarity, urgency, and accountability to the process of securing systems. In this episode, we focus on how to clearly communicate vulnerabilities to stakeholders and how strong reporting practices lead to better outcomes.
Let’s begin with the basics of clear communication. A vulnerability report should do more than just list technical issues—it should explain what they mean, why they matter, and what actions are required. The goal is to translate scan results or analysis findings into language that both technical and non-technical stakeholders can understand and act upon.
When communicating vulnerabilities, consider your audience. System administrators need technical detail—specific file paths, affected components, and remediation steps. Business leaders need impact summaries—how the vulnerability affects operations, data, reputation, or compliance. Executives may also need metrics—how many critical issues exist, how long they’ve been open, and what progress is being made. Tailoring your message ensures that everyone receives the right level of information without getting overwhelmed or confused.
Every vulnerability report should include several core elements. Start with a unique identifier, such as a Common Vulnerability Enumeration number if available. Include a clear description of the vulnerability—what it is, how it works, and which systems or applications are affected. Provide a severity rating using the Common Vulnerability Scoring System, and note whether exploits are known or if the issue is theoretical. Then, most importantly, include recommended remediation actions. Be specific. Tell the reader what patch to apply, what configuration to change, or what control to implement. Vague recommendations lead to confusion and delays.
Effective vulnerability reporting also includes tracking and documentation. Vulnerabilities do not exist in isolation—they move through a lifecycle. First they are discovered, then confirmed, then prioritized, remediated, verified, and closed. Your reporting should reflect that lifecycle. Track each vulnerability with a status field—such as open, in progress, pending verification, or resolved. Include timestamps to document when the vulnerability was discovered, when it was assigned, and when it was fixed.
This tracking process supports accountability. If a vulnerability remains unresolved for an extended period, reports should highlight that fact. If remediation is delayed due to a business need or operational constraint, the report should include that context. Documentation helps ensure that issues do not fall through the cracks and that teams have the information they need to stay aligned.
Using a centralized tracking system—such as a vulnerability management platform, ticketing system, or security dashboard—helps standardize reporting and makes it easier to share updates across departments. These systems also support trend analysis. Over time, organizations can review past reports to see which vulnerabilities recur, which systems are most at risk, or where response times are lagging.
Let’s consider a practical example. A financial services company discovers a critical vulnerability in one of its customer-facing applications. The vulnerability is assigned a Common Vulnerability Scoring System score of nine point one and has a known exploit available. The security team creates a detailed report that includes a summary for leadership, technical details for the development team, and a mitigation timeline that includes expected milestones. Weekly reports are shared with stakeholders until the vulnerability is fully resolved and verified. Because communication was clear and structured, the issue was remediated quickly, and leadership remained informed without needing to chase updates.
In another case, a hospital’s IT department detects multiple medium-severity vulnerabilities during a routine scan. Instead of dumping the results into a spreadsheet, the security lead groups the vulnerabilities by system owner, adds remediation guidance, and assigns each issue in the ticketing system. A monthly report highlights trends, such as the average time to resolve issues or the number of open vulnerabilities per department. This reporting method helps department heads prioritize fixes and gives executives a high-level view of the organization’s overall risk posture.
Reporting also plays a key role in post-incident reviews. If a breach occurs, one of the first questions leadership will ask is whether any known vulnerabilities were involved. Strong documentation allows security teams to quickly show which vulnerabilities were discovered, how they were handled, and where improvements are needed. In some cases, this documentation can reduce liability or support regulatory compliance.
On the flip side, poor reporting can cause real harm. If vulnerabilities are communicated without urgency or context, teams may ignore them. If reports are filled with jargon or lack clear instructions, remediation efforts may stall. If tracking is inconsistent, no one will know which issues are still unresolved. In these cases, the real problem is not the vulnerability—it’s the failure to act on it.
Good vulnerability reporting is also about tone. Avoid blame. The purpose is not to shame teams for having vulnerabilities, but to inform and empower them to fix those issues quickly. Emphasize partnership. Frame vulnerabilities as shared risks and solutions as shared wins. When teams feel supported rather than targeted, they are more likely to engage and follow through.
Let’s explore one more example. A government agency performs quarterly vulnerability assessments across its departments. Instead of issuing a single technical report, the security team produces a three-layered document: an executive summary, department-specific dashboards, and a full technical appendix. Each department receives only the sections relevant to its systems, along with customized guidance and support contacts. Over time, this approach leads to faster remediation, better engagement, and measurable risk reduction across the organization.
To summarize, effective vulnerability reporting ensures that technical findings become actionable plans. Clear communication, tailored to different audiences, helps teams understand what the issue is and how to fix it. Structured tracking supports accountability, progress monitoring, and compliance. Good reporting reduces confusion, improves coordination, and helps transform vulnerability management from a reactive task into a proactive strategy.
As you prepare for the Security Plus exam, expect to see questions about what should be included in a vulnerability report, how to track remediation, and how to communicate findings to different audiences. Be ready for scenarios where you must identify gaps in reporting or recommend improvements. Review terms like status tracking, severity rating, remediation summary, and escalation process—these are all relevant in both multiple-choice and performance-based questions.