AishiSec: Know the Weakness. Build the Strength.
Illustrative Sample: Not From a Real Client

Sample Security Report

This is a fictional example created by AishiSec to demonstrate how security findings are documented. It does not represent a real client engagement.

This example is written as a web application report, but every AishiSec report, whatever the service, follows the same structure: an executive summary, a severity overview, findings with evidence, business impact, and remediation and retest results. Every finding is designed to answer the questions that matter to both technical teams and business stakeholders.

Below is a preview. The complete 19-page sample, a fully fictional, illustrative document, is available as a PDF download.

Illustrative Example: Fictional, Not a Real Assessment

Security Assessment Report

Severity: High

Executive summary

The assessment covered the application's sign-in flow, session handling, user profile features and the supporting API, focusing on authentication, authorisation and the protection of user data.

The application has a reasonable security baseline: no critical issues were found, and the review identified one high, two medium and one low severity finding.

The headline risk is Finding AS-001, a broken access control flaw in the user profile API that could let one user read another user's personal data.

Severity overview

0

Critical

1

High

2

Medium

1

Low

Findings

Finding AS-001

Severity: High · Business impact: High

Broken Access Control in User Profile API

What we found

A logged-in user could access another user's profile information simply by changing a user identifier in an API request.

What an attacker could do

An attacker with any valid account could read the personal data of other users, without needing any further privileges.

Why it matters

If exploited in a real environment, this could expose customer data and create privacy, compliance and reputational risks for the business.

How to fix it

The application should enforce authorisation on the server for every request, verifying that the signed-in user is allowed to access the resource they are asking for rather than trusting the identifier supplied in the request.

Evidence

GET /api/v1/users/{userId}/profile

Finding AS-002

Severity: Medium · Business impact: Medium

Missing Rate Limiting on Login Endpoint

What we found

The sign-in endpoint accepts requests without throttling or lockout. During testing, 10,000 login attempts were submitted in a single hour and the application neither slowed them down nor locked the account.

What an attacker could do

With no throttling or lockout, an attacker can run credential-stuffing campaigns, automated tools that try many leaked username and password combinations, at full speed and without any limit on attempts.

Why it matters

Credential stuffing is one of the most common routes to account takeover. If an attacker succeeds, they gain the same access as the legitimate customer, including their data and the actions they can take in the application.

How to fix it

Add rate limiting and throttling to the sign-in endpoint, lock accounts temporarily after a small number of failed attempts, and monitor for unusual volumes of login failures so that a credential-stuffing campaign is detected early.

Evidence

POST /api/v1/auth/login

10,000 attempts per hour, no lockout, no throttling

Remediation and retest

AS-001 : fixed and verified in retest

AS-002 : fixed and verified in retest

What Every Finding Includes

  • What is wrong?
  • Why does it matter?
  • What could an attacker do?
  • How serious is it?
  • How should it be fixed?
  • Has it been fixed?

19 pages · PDF · fully fictional sample, no real client data

Know where your security stands.

Tell us what you're building, operating or protecting. We'll help you determine where security testing should start.