Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing (VAPT) has become a core regulatory requirement across industries in 2026. Regulators no longer view VAPT as a one-time technical exercise; they use it as a measure of an organization’s security maturity, governance, and remediation discipline.

Despite regular testing, many organizations continue to receive adverse observations during regulatory and internal audits. The issue is rarely the absence of a VAPT report; it is the gaps revealed around how vulnerabilities are handled.

This blog explains the seven most common cybersecurity gaps regulators flag during VAPT audits and why fixing them is critical for compliance and resilience.

1. Critical Vulnerabilities Left Unpatched

The most frequent and serious gap is the presence of open critical or high-risk vulnerabilities.

• Known vulnerabilities left unresolved for months
• No defined patching timelines
• Lack of ownership for remediation

In 2026, regulators expect time-bound closure, not just identification. Leaving critical issues open is treated as a governance failure, not a technical oversight.

2. VAPT Reports Without Remediation Evidence

Many organizations submit VAPT reports but fail to provide proof of remediation.

• No screenshots or logs showing fixes
• No re-testing evidence
• No sign-off from system owners

Regulators assess the full remediation lifecycle, not just the test results. Without closure evidence, vulnerabilities are considered unresolved.

3. Limited Scope of VAPT Testing

Another major gap is incomplete VAPT coverage.

• Cloud environments are excluded
• APIs are not tested
• External-facing applications are missed
• Internal lateral movement is not assessed

In 2026, regulators expect VAPT to cover all critical assets, including cloud, SaaS, APIs, and third-party integrations.

4. Repeat Findings Across Multiple VAPT Cycles

Repeated vulnerabilities across consecutive VAPT audits signal deeper problems.

This indicates:

• Weak root-cause analysis
• Temporary fixes instead of permanent remediation
• Poor secure development practices

Regulators view repeat findings as a sign of ineffective security governance, even if testing is performed regularly.

5. Absence of Risk-Based Prioritization

Not all vulnerabilities carry the same risk, yet many organizations treat them equally—or ignore prioritization altogether.

• No risk scoring aligned with business impact
• Delayed remediation of exploitable vulnerabilities
• No linkage between vulnerabilities and critical systems

In 2026, regulators expect a risk-based remediation approach, focusing first on vulnerabilities that impact sensitive data and core operations.

6. VAPT Performed as a Compliance Checkbox

Regulators increasingly flag organizations that treat VAPT as a “tick-box” requirement.

• Same test methodology every year
• No contextual analysis of threats
• No alignment with incident trends or attack scenarios

VAPT is expected to evolve with the threat landscape. Static testing models no longer meet regulatory expectations.

7. Weak Integration Between VAPT and Incident Response

One of the most overlooked gaps is the lack of integration between VAPT findings and incident response planning.

• Vulnerabilities not mapped to attack scenarios
• Incident response plans not updated based on VAPT outcomes
• No tabletop exercises linked to identified risks

In 2026, regulators expect organizations to use VAPT results to improve real-world attack readiness, not just security scores.

Conclusion

In 2026, regulators are not asking whether VAPT was conducted, they are asking how effectively vulnerabilities were managed. Addressing these seven common gaps can significantly reduce audit findings and strengthen cyber resilience.