Vulnerability Retesting That Helps You Close the Loop
Reduce the back-and-forth after a vulnerability fix. Compare the original evidence with a focused retest and give your team a clearer remediation decision.
Keep remediation from becoming another testing backlog
A developer has shipped a fix. The original tester has moved to another engagement. Rebuilding the context and arranging another check can take longer than the fix itself.
AI retesting focuses automation on the original issue so your team can work toward a clear closure decision without rebuilding the entire assessment from scratch.
Carry the original evidence into the follow-up
Keep the affected resource, request, account context, and expected behavior together. A focused remediation check should revisit the conditions that made the original issue observable.
Record changes to the environment or access roles so a different response can be interpreted in context. This makes the handoff between security and engineering easier to follow.
Give each outcome a clear meaning
Fixed means the relevant control behaves as expected under the tested conditions. Reproduced means the original issue is still observable. Inconclusive means missing access or changed conditions prevent a dependable decision.
Clear outcomes help your team decide what to close, what to investigate, and what needs another check.
Keep the follow-up focused
The scope of a remediation check should stay tied to the original finding. The default non-destructive testing policy excludes destructive operations, and the assessment brief sets the intended assets and exclusions.
See the report sample for a fictional comparison between an original 200 OK response and a follow-up 403 Forbidden response, with separate evidence for each conclusion.
Join early access
Create your workspace and explore the interactive retest example today. Company retests require an eligible finding, sufficient released credits, the appropriate role, and execution availability; each retest reserves its own credits.