Skip to content

What Boards Should Expect from a Penetration Testing Report

Published.

As cyber threats intensify and regulatory scrutiny deepens, Boards of financial institutions are being held directly accountable for the oversight of digital resilience. Yet when penetration testing reports reach the Board table, they often do little to inform strategic discussion.

 

Many reports remain overly technical, lack prioritisation, and fail to connect vulnerabilities to business impact. For Boards, the challenge is knowing what good looks like — and how to use test results to drive assurance and governance rather than confusion.

Penetration Testing in the Context of Board Oversight

 

Penetration testing is more than a technical assessment.

For regulated firms under the FCA, PRA, and DORA, it is an essential part of the governance evidence chain.

 

A well-structured penetration testing report should help the Board:

 

1. Understand the organisation’s exposure to material cyber risks

2. Assess whether defences and controls are working as intended

3. Confirm that remediation and oversight processes are effective

4. Demonstrate compliance with operational resilience requirements

 

This is not about reading configuration details. It is about understanding whether the firm’s resilience posture supports its strategic and regulatory objectives.

 

FCA Handbook SYSC 8 sets expectations for governance and risk oversight in outsourced and technological contexts.

What a Board-Ready Penetration Testing Report Should Contain

 

A credible report should combine technical depth for specialists with executive clarity for decision-makers.

Boards should expect the following elements:

  • Executive Summary: Plain-language overview of what was tested, why, and with what results
  • Business Impact Summary: Mapping of findings to critical services, financial exposure, and resilience tolerances
  • Risk Prioritisation: Clear ranking of vulnerabilities based on potential business disruption rather than technical severity alone
  • Remediation Roadmap: Specific actions, ownership, and timelines linked to governance frameworks
  • Trend Analysis: Historical data showing improvement or recurring weaknesses

If these elements are missing, the report risks becoming a technical artefact rather than a governance tool.

 

Learn more about our Penetration Testing Services for U.K. Financial Firms and how we ensure findings are Board-ready and aligned to FCA and PRA expectations.

How Boards Should Interpret the Results

 

Boards should not aim to evaluate every technical detail.
Instead, they should focus on the story behind the data — how the findings relate to the firm’s most important business services and its defined impact tolerances.

 

Key questions to ask include:

  • Which vulnerabilities could cause a service outage or regulatory breach?
  • How quickly are remediation actions typically completed?
  • Are the same weaknesses recurring across multiple testing cycles?
  • Do the results indicate that third-party or supply-chain risks are increasing?
  • What lessons are being shared across business units?

 

By asking these questions, Boards shift the discussion from technology risk to business resilience.

 

Bank of England Operational Resilience Guidance outlines how impact tolerances link to technology assurance activities.

 

From Technical Findings to Strategic Insight

 

Modern penetration testing reports should help Boards answer three strategic questions:

 

1. Are our most important business services protected?

2. Is our investment in cyber controls reducing real risk?

3. Can we evidence improvement and accountability over time?

 

When reports deliver this clarity, they enable informed decision-making, prioritised investment, and regulatory confidence.

 

Boards should also expect reports to highlight external benchmarking, showing how the organisation compares to peers or industry averages.

This context strengthens oversight and supports risk-based resource allocation.

 

NCSC Board Toolkit provides practical guidance for directors on interpreting cyber risk information.

The Importance of Presentation and Communication

 

A well-delivered penetration testing report is not only about written data but also about presentation and dialogue.

Boards should encourage concise executive briefings where findings are explained in business terms.

 

Key considerations include:

 

  • Using risk heat maps to visualise exposure
  • Summarising trends across multiple testing cycles
  • Framing results within the operational resilience strategy
  • Highlighting dependencies on third parties and suppliers

 

This approach ensures the Board gains understanding rather than information overload.

 

For broader context, read Why Traditional VAPT No Longer Adds Value for Financial Services to understand how modern testing enhances governance visibility.

Conclusion

 

For Boards, penetration testing reports are not about the technicalities of cybersecurity but about the assurance of organisational resilience.

A strong report translates technical findings into business intelligence that supports oversight, accountability, and regulatory alignment.

 

When interpreted effectively, these reports give Boards what they need most: confidence that cyber risk is understood, managed, and improving over time.