Working on security inside a company that takes security seriously sometimes blinds me to how other people work and the challenges they face with getting security issues taken seriously.
I've noticed that lots of people that work as consultants and/or inside companies have to jump through lots of hoops to get a security vulnerability taken seriously.
In many cases I see people spending hours and hours crafting a working proof-of-concept exploit for a vulnerability and needing to actually demonstrate that exploit to get the issue taken seriously.
To understand this better, I set up a small poll to get some data about why people are needing to craft a working POC when demonstrating a vulnerability exists.
I've only ever had to do this once, and yet it seems that every time I read about a penetration test I see people spending lots of time crafting sample exploits rather than spending more time on finding more vulnerabilities, or fixing classes of vulnerabilities that are similar and offering solutions to those.
In my experience the only time a POC has been really useful is when I need to make sure that the person fixing the issue has the necessary information/tests to make sure they've closed the issue.
For those who do penetration tests (network or application) - how often do you feel that you need to create working POCs for exploits in order for the company's management to take it seriously?