What a security report should look like (if you're not an engineer)

If you've ever received a security report, you probably remember the feeling: page after page of acronyms, severity scores with no context, and a creeping suspicion that the person who wrote it was talking to someone else.

They were. Most security reports are written for other security professionals — as proof of thoroughness, not as a tool for decisions.

The three questions an owner actually has

After delivering hundreds of reports, we know every owner reads with the same three questions in mind: Is my business in danger right now? What would it cost me if I ignore this? And what exactly do I need to do next?

Everything else is decoration.

How we structure ours

Every finding lands in one of three buckets. **Fix this now**: an open door that could be used today, with what walking through it would mean for your business — in money and in trust, not in technical terms. **Fix this soon**: weaknesses that aren't exploitable yet, but will be as your site grows or as tools evolve. **You're fine**: things we checked that passed, so you know they were checked.

Each item fits on an index card. If you want the technical appendix, it's there — but you never need it to decide.

The five-minute test

Here's our internal rule: an owner should be able to read the summary and decide what to fix in under five minutes. If a report needs a meeting to be understood, the report failed — not the owner.

That's the standard your security reporting should meet. If yours doesn't, ask why. And if you'd like to see what one looks like, the first one is free.