Amazon requires third-party apps handling sensitive seller or buyer data to submit a penetration test as part of their security assessment review. This review might seem like any other compliance checkpoint but over time, our experts have been consistently receiving one question: why does the report keep getting rejected?
We've seen this pattern repeatedly. Teams that check every box, follow every requirement, and hire qualified vendors still find themselves facing rejections.
So what's actually going wrong? We've identified the five most critical mistakes Amazon SP-API pentest reports get rejected and what it takes to make sure yours isn't one of them.
1. The Scope Isn't SP-API Specific
This is the biggest one and the most common. A standard web application pentest is not the same as an Amazon SP-API security assessment. Amazon's reviewers know the difference, and they'll spot a generic report immediately.
What they're specifically looking for coverage of:
- OAuth/LWA (Login with Amazon) flows: how your app requests, exchanges, and manages authorization tokens
- Token lifecycle: issuance, storage, rotation, and expiry handling
- Scope enforcement: does your backend actually validate that tokens only access what they're supposed to?
- SP-API endpoint coverage: not just your own API, but how your integration touches Amazon's
If your report reads like a generic OWASP Top 10 checklist without any of this, it's going back to you with a rejection.
The fix: Make sure your pentester understands the SP-API integration model before they start testing. Provide them with your LWA integration docs, token handling architecture, and a map of your SP-API calls. The test should be scoped around these flows, not just general application testing.
2. The Tester or Firm Lacks Independence and Credibility
Amazon's reviewers are looking for independent, qualified, third-party testers. That phrase carries real weight.
What typically fails:
- Internal security teams running the test on their own platform
- Individual freelancers without recognized certifications or a track record
- Small or unknown firms with no verifiable SP-API or Amazon ecosystem experience
Amazon wants to see that someone outside your organization, with verifiable credentials, ran a real test. Accepted certifications include OSCP, CREST, and GPEN. Firms that have previously had reports accepted by Amazon are worth their premium, they know what the reviewers want to see.
The fix: Engage a certified, independent security firm. Ask them directly: "Have you completed SP-API assessments before, and have those reports been accepted?" That question alone will save you a lot of back-and-forth.
3. Confusing Vulnerability Assessment with Penetration Testing
This is where many companies go wrong. A vulnerability assessment is not the same as a penetration test. Teams run tools like Nessus, Burp Suite (passive scans), or OWASP ZAP, generate a report, and assume they’re ready for submission. They’re not.
These tools are designed to identify known vulnerabilities, not to simulate real-world attack scenarios or uncover deeper business logic flaws. Amazon reviewers can spot this immediately. A tool-generated report lacks depth, context, and proof of exploitation, all of which are expected in a proper SP-API security assessment.
Even newer approaches like autonomous pentesting platforms such as Pentera or Pentagi, while useful for continuous validation, still don’t fully replace a skilled human tester in a gray-box environment. Their reports are also typically not accepted, as Amazon reviewers tend to classify them in the same category as automated scans.
Amazon requires manual, gray-box testing. This means a human tester with knowledge of your architecture is actively attempting to exploit business logic flaws, OAuth edge cases, authorization bypasses, and data exposure issues, not just running a scanner and flagging CVEs.
The fix: Ensure your engagement includes documented manual testing methodology. Your report should reference frameworks like OWASP API Security Top 10, PTES, or NIST and should include evidence of manual exploitation attempts, not just tool output.
4. Poor Report Quality
Amazon's reviewers are humans. They read these reports. And a poorly structured, unclear, or unprofessional report, regardless of the quality of the actual testing, can and does lead to rejection.
Common report quality failures:
- No executive summary (or one written for a purely technical audience)
- Missing tester qualifications, test dates, and methodology statement
- Findings listed without CVSS scores or clear risk ratings
- Vague or missing remediation guidance
- Raw tool output copy-pasted in without analysis
- No explicit statement of gray-box methodology
The fix: A detailed pentest report for an SP-API submission should clearly state who tested, what was tested, how it was tested (explicit gray-box), and what was found. Every finding must include evidence, CVSS scoring, business impact, and clear remediation. Before submission, run a senior-level QA review.
5. Unresolved Critical or High Findings at Time of Submission
This one sounds obvious, but it catches companies all the time especially when they're under deadline pressure.
Amazon enforces strict remediation timelines:
- Critical findings: Must be resolved within approximately 7 days
- High findings: Must be resolved within approximately 30 days
Submitting a report with open critical or high vulnerabilities, even with a remediation plan attached, signals that you're not ready. Reviewers want to see that issues were found, fixed, and retested before the report lands on their desk.
The fix: Submit only after all critical and high-risk vulnerabilities have been resolved. Amazon expects a clean report at the time of submission. If any critical or high findings are still open, it signals incomplete remediation.
Once vulnerabilities are identified, fix them, conduct a formal retest, and include clear attestation in your final report confirming that all issues have been resolved.
Key Takeaway
Passing an Amazon SP-API security assessment comes down to how clearly and convincingly your security is presented to Amazon’s reviewers. Many companies struggle because they treat implementation and evaluation as the same thing when they are judged differently.
The short version:
- Scope your test specifically around SP-API and OAuth/LWA flows
- Use a certified, independent, third-party firm with Amazon experience
- Require manual gray-box testing, not just automated scans
- Invest in report quality, it matters more than most people expect
- Fix everything before you submit, and document the fixes
Working with RedSecLabs on Your SP-API Assessment
Our offensive security experts and penetration testing consultants have been helping companies navigate Amazon's SP-API security assessment and getting their reports accepted the first time.
RedSecLabs is a CREST-accredited enterprise cybersecurity consultancy delivering manual gray-box penetration testing, AWS cloud security reviews, and compliance-aligned reporting that meets Amazon's bar.
If you're at the scoping stage, dealing with a previous rejection, or simply want to get it right from the start, book a consultation with our team or contact us at: [email protected].
