I got a security pentest report. Help me translate it into actionable engineering work — not 'lots of red, oh no.'
FINDINGS COUNT BY SEVERITY: {critical_X high_Y medium_Z low_N info_M}
SCOPE OF THE TEST: {webapp / api / infra / mobile / cloud_config}
KEY VULNERABILITIES (top 5-10 paste): {paste}
MY APP STACK: {summary}
MY ENG TEAM SIZE: {count}
COMPLIANCE PRESSURE: {SOC2 / HIPAA / PCI / nothing_external / customer_required}
DEADLINE FOR FIXES: {date_if_any}
MY ROLE: {founding_eng / security_engineer / CTO / lead}
WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE in place: {WAF / SSO / 2FA / secret_management / etc.}
FOR THE REPORT, GIVE ME:
1. **The realistic priority order** — not just 'critical first.' Account for: actual exploitability in our context, fix cost, blast radius.
2. **For each top finding:**
- Plain-English description of the actual risk
- Whether it's a true critical or report-padding
- Concrete remediation steps (with code/config examples)
- Effort estimate (hours)
- Compensating control if a fix takes time
3. **What to ignore (or accept the risk on)** — be specific. 'Self-signed cert on internal dev domain' is not the same as 'TLS misconfiguration in production.'
4. **A 30/60/90 day remediation timeline** — what's done first, what waits, what's monitoring + detection.
5. **A 1-paragraph summary** to send to leadership without scaring them or under-selling.
6. **A retest plan** — what to ask the testers to verify when they come back.0 copies·0 saves·3 views
234 words·1,462 chars
Sample output
Findings: 2 critical, 4 high, 7 medium, 12 low, 8 info. Scope: Next.js web app + Node.js API + AWS infra. Top findings: (1) SQL injection in /api/search, (2) JWT signing key in environment variable visible in build logs, (3) IDOR on /api/orders/{id}, (4) X-Frame-Options missing site-wide, (5) outdated lodash (npm audit). Stack: Next.js, Node API, Postgres, AWS ECS. Team: 5 engineers. Compliance: SOC2 in progress. Deadline: 60 days for SOC2 auditor.
1. Realistic priority order (not by severity label, by actual exploitability × fix cost):
Parameters
Text generation parameters
FAQ
Pentesters get paid by 'findings count' more often than they should. Always ask: 'walk me through how you'd actually exploit this on our setup' — half of medium findings collapse under that question. The prompt targets ChatGPT (GPT-4) and lives in the Coding & Development category on mycopyprompt.
This prompt is written for ChatGPT (GPT-4). It's a text/chat prompt — paste it into ChatGPT (GPT-4) (or compatible LLMs like Claude or GPT-4) to get the expected output.
1. Click the Copy button on this page to copy the full prompt. 2. Open ChatGPT (GPT-4). 3. Paste the prompt into a new conversation. 4. Replace any {placeholders} with your specifics, then send. Most prompts produce the right output on the first try; complex ones may need 1-2 iterations.
Yes — every prompt on mycopyprompt is free forever. No paywall, no signup wall for browsing or copying. You can use it for personal or commercial work, just don't redistribute the entire mycopyprompt library.
Absolutely — most prompts are templates. Look for {placeholders} (curly braces) and swap them with your own values. You can also reword sections, add constraints, or chain it with other prompts.
See the "Sample output" panel above — that's a real example of what ChatGPT (GPT-4) returns when this prompt runs. Your output will vary in wording but should follow the same structure and depth.
Similar prompts
Matched against every prompt in the catalog by title.
/api/search/api/orders/{id} (critical) — verify, fix in <72h.2. For each top finding:
A. JWT signing key in build logs (HIGH, but treat as critical):
::add-mask:: or rotate to ephemeral env vars).B. SQL injection in /api/search (CRITICAL):
/api/search endpoint code:// BAD
await db.query(`SELECT * FROM products WHERE name LIKE '%${q}%'`);
// GOOD
await db.query('SELECT * FROM products WHERE name LIKE $1', [`%${q}%`]);
${.*} in *.query( calls).@typescript-eslint/no-template-curly-in-string extended, or eslint-plugin-security).C. IDOR on /api/orders/{id} (CRITICAL):
const order = await db.orders.findUnique({ where: { id }});
if (!order || order.userId !== req.user.id) return res.status(404).end();
/api/invoices/{id}, /api/customers/{id}) for the same pattern.D. Outdated lodash (HIGH):
_.set or _.merge patterns with attacker-controlled input. Probably medium in reality.pnpm update lodash + run tests + ship.E. Missing X-Frame-Options (MEDIUM):
next.config.js once:
headers: async () => [{
source: '/(.*)',
headers: [
{ key: 'X-Frame-Options', value: 'DENY' },
{ key: 'Content-Security-Policy', value: "frame-ancestors 'none'" }
]
}]
3. What to ignore / accept the risk on:
__Host- prefix.' Defense in depth, not a real attack vector if your other cookie attributes are correct. Accept or fix when convenient.4. 30/60/90 day timeline:
Week 1 (next 7 days):
30 days:
60 days (SOC2 deadline):
90 days:
5. Leadership summary (1 paragraph):
'The pentest report identified two critical issues — both in API authorization logic, both fixable in under 12 engineer-hours each — and a handful of high-severity findings that are well within normal range for a SOC2-bound web app. We're prioritizing the two criticals plus an immediate JWT key rotation this week, and we're on track to close all critical and high-severity findings within 30 days. The remaining mediums and lows are largely defense-in-depth improvements (additional security headers, dependency updates) that we'll bundle into the next sprint. No customer data exposure has occurred to our knowledge; we will run a focused log audit this week to confirm. Retest is booked for day 35.'
6. Retest plan:
Ask the pentest team to verify, in this order:
Don't pay for a full retest — pay for verification of the closed items + the spot-check. Usually a third the cost of the original engagement.