When presenting vulnerability findings to stakeholders, what is best practice?

• A. Interpret results in business context and verify high risk manually
• B. Regurgitate vuln scan results
• C. Only report low-risk vulnerabilities
• D. Ignore results

Answer: (A)

Interpreting vulnerability findings in a business context and manually validating high-risk items is best because it turns technical data into actionable risk decisions. Stakeholders care about impact on critical assets, likelihood of exploitation, and the remediation path, not raw scan output. By tying each finding to asset value, potential business impact, and the reality of exploitability, you help leadership understand what matters and why certain fixes should take priority. Manually verifying high-risk items also reduces false positives, ensuring that efforts and resources are directed at genuine, actionable threats rather than noise.

Regurgitating scan results without context is ineffective because it overwhelates with data and offers no clarity on what to fix, by whom, and by when. Reporting only low-risk vulnerabilities misses genuine threats that could escalate, and ignoring results leaves risk unmanaged and governance-friction-filled.