What this category of data looks like
Data for this category originates across the full penetration testing lifecycle. Typical users include security service companies, red team engineers, and enterprise security teams. Data sources include target business systems, public vulnerability databases, automated scanner results, and manual verification records from red team engineers. Daily deliverable documents include test authorization letters, penetration test reports, vulnerability reproduction records, and remediation suggestions. Data updates align with individual test projects or major version iterations of target systems. Fields cover authorization scope, vulnerability severity, reproduction steps, exploit chain details, and more. There are no unified fixed units; adjustments are needed based on project scenarios. Compared to general vulnerability scanning services, this category requires additional fields related to manually verified exploit chain analysis.
Constraints on forms and interactions
Data sources are scattered and require manual cross-verification. Batch import and field mapping functions for multi-source data must be implemented by external business systems. Results are passed to FastGPT form nodes in structured format. Document structures vary significantly by project. Custom form fields and dynamically added links must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflow branches. FastGPT form nodes only support receiving structured input data. Update frequencies are not fixed cycles. Adaptations are needed for full-lifecycle data retention and archiving for individual projects. Manual verification steps account for a high proportion of work. Multi-role permission allocation and operation logging must be implemented by external business systems. Field access permissions must be managed by external business systems. FastGPT form nodes only process data based on received structured input. Differences from general scanning services require forms to retain exclusive fields for exploit chain analysis to avoid confusion with general scanning data. Missing authorization fields can lead to legal risks, so mandatory verification of related required fields is necessary.
How to configure this
This configuration is adapted for FastGPT v4.17.0, as detailed below:
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form Input Node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from penetration testing service fields as required inputs; actual fields are determined by the task | This node collects user input; missing required items requires checking interaction status to prevent subsequent nodes from receiving incomplete input |
User Selection Node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection; querying and filtering penetration testing service-related records must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Post-Submission Field Passing | Test example: Prepare 10 penetration testing service input samples, covering full completion, missing required items, and canceled operations | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields; result thresholds are determined by actual tasks |
| External Implementation Item: Custom Form Field Configuration | Must be implemented separately by external systems; configured by external business systems or subsequent workflow branches, test examples include test authorization number, vulnerability severity, exploit chain analysis fields | Matches the exclusive document structure of penetration testing |
| External Implementation Item: Multi-Source Data Import Parameters | Must be implemented separately by external systems; processed by external business systems, test examples: maximum 1000 entries, batch size 200 entries per operation | Adapts to the scale of single-project scanning results to avoid excessive system load; recommended values are starting points for actual testing |
| External Implementation Item: Field Input and Timeout Configuration | Must be implemented separately by external systems; test examples: maximum field input length 8000 characters, form submission timeout 600 seconds, all configured by external business systems or subsequent nodes | Adapts to vulnerability reproduction record and project data verification requirements; recommended values are starting points for actual testing |
Three Common Mistakes
- Observable symptom: An error stating "Cannot convert undefined or null to object" appears after form submission. Verification steps: Check the
formInputrequired field rules configured by the external business system or subsequent nodes. Confirm whether fields such as authorization letter number and target test scope are correctly marked as required items. - Observable symptom: The form cannot import scanner result files. Verification steps: Check whether the external business system has completed format conversion of scanner results. Confirm that data passed to FastGPT form nodes is in structured format. Avoid passing unconverted CSV files.
- Observable symptom: Red team engineers cannot edit vulnerability reproduction records. Verification steps: Check the role permission configuration of the external business system. Confirm whether the corresponding account is granted edit permissions for vulnerability reproduction record fields. Confirm that the FastGPT user selection node is correctly associated with the interaction workflow.
How to verify proper configuration
- When adding a new test project, check whether the structured data passed to the FastGPT form node includes exclusive fields such as test authorization number and vulnerability severity.
- Submit structured data with an empty authorization letter number field. Confirm whether the external business system or subsequent node triggers a required field verification prompt.
- After configuring role permission rules for the external business system, switch to the corresponding test account. Confirm whether interaction can be completed via the FastGPT user selection node, and whether edit content for vulnerability reproduction record fields can be submitted.
- Attempt to convert CSV-format scanner results to structured input via the external business system and pass it to the FastGPT form node. Confirm whether data can be properly populated into corresponding form fields.
Note: All recommended values are common starting points and should be validated against the reader's own samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.