/redteam-report-template

name: redteam-report-template
description: Client-facing red-team deliverable format — codifies the Subject / Observations / Description / Impact / Recommendation / PoC structure used for external red-team engagements (not bug-bounty platform reports). Different audience, different tone, different cadence. Built from an authorized engagement deliverable where 14 findings were packaged into a 52KB MD + 2.2MB DOCX with 16 embedded screenshots. Use when the engagement is "external red team for an enterprise client" (not H1/Bugcrowd/Intigriti), when generating the final report, when the client has specified a custom report format, or when packaging findings into DOCX/PDF.
sources: authorized-engagement-deliverable, enterprise-redteam-report-conventions
report_count: 1

When to use

Use this skill for **client-deliverable** reports:

• External red-team engagements with a signed SOW
• Pentest reports going to a CISO / IT-Sec team (not a triager)
• Findings that will be reviewed by both technical and non-technical stakeholders
• Reports that need DOCX/PDF output (not just markdown / platform UI)

Do NOT use for:

• Bug-bounty platform submissions (use `report-writing` / `bugcrowd-reporting` instead)
• Quick proof-of-concept memos
• Internal team writeups

---

The 6-section format per finding

This is the canonical structure each finding follows:

## Finding F##: <descriptive title>

**Severity:** Critical / High / Medium / Low / Informational
**Status:** Confirmed / Patched mid-engagement / Suspected (1 signal)
**CVSS 3.1:** <score> (<vector>)
**Affected Asset:** <URL / IP / app name>

### 1. Subject
<One-line statement of the issue. Plain English, no jargon.>

### 2. Observations
<Bulleted list of what was observed during testing. Concrete facts only — no interpretation yet.>
- <Observation 1>
- <Observation 2>
- ...

### 3. Description
<Technical explanation of the vulnerability. 2-4 paragraphs. Reader should understand WHY the observations indicate a vulnerability, what the underlying flaw is.>

### 4. Impact
<What an attacker could achieve. Concrete attacker outcomes, NOT generic CIA triad statements. Tie to the client's business — money, data, reputation, regulatory exposure.>

### 5. Recommendation
<Specific, actionable remediation. Vendor patch, configuration change, code-level fix. Avoid "implement security best practices" — say what specifically.>

### 6. Proof of Concept (PoC)
<Steps to reproduce, numbered. Include the exact HTTP requests, payloads, tools used.>

**Step 1:** <action>
```http
<full HTTP request or curl one-liner>

**Step 2:** <action>

<response excerpt>

**Screenshot:** 

---

## Severity & status disciplines

### Severity table (client-facing — different from CVSS-only)

| Severity | Business definition | CVSS rough range |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Direct revenue/data loss without prerequisites | 9.0-10.0 |
| High | Full account/system takeover with limited prerequisites | 7.0-8.9 |
| Medium | Significant data exposure or partial compromise | 4.0-6.9 |
| Low | Information disclosure with limited exploitation path | 0.1-3.9 |
| Informational | Hygiene finding, no immediate exploit | N/A |

### Status field (red-team-specific)

This is the field that distinguishes red-team deliverables from bug-bounty reports. Use one of:

- **Confirmed** — reproduced multiple times, with full PoC
- **Confirmed; patched mid-engagement** — was reproducible, client patched during the test window (still ship the finding — see `mid-engagement-ir-detection`)
- **Confirmed; partially reproducible** — works but needs specific conditions
- **Suspected (1 signal)** — single indicator, not confirmed (rare — usually drop)
- **Out-of-band** — finding from passive recon, not actively tested

---

## Mistakes to avoid (from authorized-engagement)

### 1. Don't retract findings that stopped reproducing
If a finding was confirmed and then stopped working, that is almost always a CLIENT PATCH, not a finding-was-false. The correct response is "Confirmed; patched mid-engagement" with timestamps showing when it broke. See `mid-engagement-ir-detection`.

### 2. Don't hedge in the Impact section
Bad: "An attacker could potentially be able to access user data, which may lead to..."
Good: "An attacker reads any user's profile data. Demonstrated on test user `victim@target.com` at 14:22 IST."

### 3. Don't generic-CIA the impact
Bad: "Loss of confidentiality and integrity of customer data"
Good: "Read access to 247,000 customer records including PAN cards, addresses, GST numbers. India DPDPA Section 33 mandates 72-hour breach disclosure to DPB."

### 4. Don't list every recon finding as a finding
Recon notes (subdomains found, ports open, technologies fingerprinted) belong in a separate **Recon / Attack Surface** appendix, not the findings list. A finding must have an attacker-attainable outcome.

### 5. Don't bury the PoC
Each finding MUST have reproducible steps. The PoC section is what proves the finding to a skeptical reader. If you can't write the PoC clearly, the finding probably isn't ready to ship.

---

## Document-level structure

1. Executive Summary (1 page, non-technical)

• Engagement overview (dates, scope)
• Risk posture summary (heat-map: <X critical, Y high, Z medium...>)
• Top 3 strategic recommendations
• Comparison to industry baseline (optional)

2. Engagement Details

• Scope (in-scope, out-of-scope, exclusions)
• Methodology (recon → exploit → reporting; or align with PTES / OSSTMM)
• Tools used
• Timeline (start / end / key milestones)
• Team

3. Risk Summary Table | F# | Title | Severity | Status | |----|-------|----------|--------| | F01 | ... | Critical | Confirmed | ...

4. Findings (one per ## section, in severity order — Critical first)

5. Attack Surface / Recon Appendix

• Subdomains discovered
• Open ports / services
• Technol