What Should a Shopify App VAPT Report Contain?

Identify the app, assessment organisation, report version and testing dates. List backend domains, API environments, relevant roles and authorized tenants. Record the deployed version where possible and explain material differences between tested and production environments. An organisation-wide title does not tell a reviewer whether the affected app backend was included.

State exclusions, authorization boundaries and access limitations. If a feature or role was inaccessible, say so. Do not imply permission to test Shopify infrastructure or unrelated stores. A reviewer should be able to distinguish tested surfaces from planned surfaces and understand whether a scope limitation affects the assurance provided by the conclusion.

Explain how discovery, manual testing, automated assistance and validation were used. Map coverage to actual app functionality, such as tenant isolation, object authorization, OAuth, sessions, token handling, webhooks, billing logic and sensitive data flows. A list of standard names without an explanation of what was examined is not a coverage statement.

Include relevant testing conditions and constraints. Describe accounts and roles without exposing active secrets. Show how the assessment considered multi-store boundaries and backend controls rather than merely scanning a landing page. Avoid claims that every conceivable attack path was tested; scope, access and time place real boundaries on an assessment.

Give each finding a stable identifier, affected asset, title, severity and rationale. Document preconditions, safe reproduction, observed result and expected control. Include enough redacted evidence for developers to reproduce the issue under authorization and for a reviewer to understand its impact. Avoid publishing merchant records or reusable credentials.

Distinguish confirmed exploitation in the test from historical incident impact. A VAPT finding showing cross-store access does not establish how often it was exploited before testing. Explain false positives or unvalidated items separately. Risk ratings should be interpretable, with business context where relevant, rather than unexplained labels designed only to make the report look favourable.

Describe the underlying control that needs correction and any related paths that should be reviewed. Developers need more than a generic “sanitize inputs” recommendation when the issue is missing tenant authorization. Track changes and deployments against original finding identifiers so the verification history remains understandable.

If retesting was performed, state its date, environment, version and result for each agreed finding. Use explicit fixed, partially fixed, open or not-tested status. Keep original findings separate from the current status rather than erasing evidence of the original weakness. A retest conclusion must remain bounded to the verified issues and conditions.

Summarize significant risks, remediation progress and unresolved questions for the review audience. The conclusion should reflect the scope and evidence, not claim the app is unconditionally secure. State where additional testing or evidence is needed. If an Incident Report is also required, cross-reference it while keeping the event narrative separate from assessment results.

Prepare a document index and controlled delivery method matching Shopify’s notice. Keep report versions consistent and preserve what was submitted. Scantra can discuss independent assessment and evidence preparation after reviewing the request. It cannot represent this checklist as a Shopify-approved format or guarantee that a report will lead to App Store relisting.

Read the report as if you were not present during testing. Can you identify the affected app, environments, dates, authorization and limitations? Can a developer reproduce each validated finding safely and understand the intended control? Can you connect the original finding to a deployed change and a dated retest result? If the answer depends on an undocumented verbal conversation, improve the report or add a controlled reference. Check that screenshots and request examples do not expose secrets or merchant records. Review the executive conclusion against unresolved findings and not-tested areas. Completeness means traceable evidence and honest limits, not a longer document or an unsupported declaration that the app is secure against all threats.

Check the appendices as carefully as the executive summary. Finding references, dates and status labels should agree throughout the document. A screenshot should identify the tested environment without revealing active tokens. If evidence is stored separately, provide a controlled reference that the intended reviewer can access rather than an unrestricted public link.