What is a recommended use of Nessus results in terms of verification?

• A. Verify results manually if possible
• B. Use as final report without verification
• C. Ignore warnings
• D. Rely solely on Nessus

Answer: (A)

Nessus results should be verified manually when possible because automated scans can produce false positives or miss important real-world context. A finding from Nessus might look serious on paper, but in practice the asset may be unreachable, the service version might be different from what the scanner saw, or the vulnerability may not be exploitable in the target environment. Manual verification confirms that the asset exists, the service is reachable, the reported version and configuration are accurate, and the vulnerability is actually present under real conditions.

This often involves safe, non-destructive checks like verifying service banners, cross-checking versions against vendor advisories, reviewing configuration and patch levels, and gathering concrete evidence (screenshots, logs, or configuration dumps) to support the finding. Treat Nessus as a starting point that guides deeper verification rather than as the final word. Relying solely on Nessus, ignoring warnings, or skipping verification can lead to wasted effort or missed true risks.