Penetration Testing Firms: 10 Red Flags Every Business Should Know

What are the red flags you should look for when choosing a penetration testing firm?

When you pick a penetration testing firm, the biggest red flags are the ones that signal you are paying for theater instead of real validation. Be wary of any firm that won’t describe its testing methodology in plain language, refuses to define exactly what “penetration testing” includes, or can’t explain how it separates manual exploitation from automated scanning. Watch for vague scopes (“we’ll test everything”), pricing that looks too good to be true without a clear breakdown of time and effort, and proposals that focus on deliverables like “a big report” rather than outcomes like verified impact, reproducible evidence, and practical fixes. Credibility matters too: if a firm leans heavily on flashy claims instead of verifiable references, won’t name the actual testers assigned to your engagement, won’t commit to rules of engagement and safe-testing boundaries, or won’t offer a retest to confirm fixes, you should assume they won’t stand behind their work. Finally, treat any resistance to basic transparency as a deal-breaker: a legitimate firm will document scope, constraints, data-handling, and reporting expectations up front so there are no surprises for you or your auditors.

TL;DR:
Not all penetration testing firms deliver the same level of rigor. Some penetration testing companies oversell capabilities, blur the line between scanning and manual testing, or rely on marketing claims that are hard to verify. This guide walks through 10 practical red flags to watch for when evaluating penetration testing providers, along with the questions and verification steps that help you confirm scope, staffing, methodology, and reporting quality. A weak assessment can create a false sense of security and leave real attack paths untouched, which often costs far more than the original engagement.

Why You Shouldn’t Trust Penetration Testing Firms Without Asking These Questions

The penetration testing market has a quality problem. Some penetration testing firms run disciplined, expert-led engagements that use clear methodology, defined scope, and manual validation to prove real impact. Others sell a “pentest” that looks legitimate on paper but relies heavily on automated scanning, vague claims, and marketing language that does not match what gets delivered. If you can’t tell the difference up front, you can end up with a report that satisfies a checkbox while missing the attack paths that actually matter.

This guide is built for buyers who want to vet penetration testing companies the same way they vet any other high-risk vendor. It focuses on practical due diligence, the questions that credible pen testing firms answer without hesitation, and the warning signs that often show up when a cybersecurity testing firm is more focused on appearance than outcomes. Nothing here requires you to assume bad intent. The point is to help you verify capability, ensure the scope matches your risk, and confirm the firm will stand behind the work with transparent reporting and retesting.

By the end, you’ll know how to spot common red flags, what to ask before you sign a statement of work with a penetration testing provider, and how to avoid pentest vendors that overpromise, underdeliver, or blur the line between scanning and true manual testing. If you’re evaluating penetration testing firms right now, or reconsidering a past engagement, the goal is simple: make sure you’re buying real security testing, not a deliverable that only looks credible.

What you’ll take away:

• Why “best penetration testing company” marketing should trigger verification, not trust
• How to spot questionable credentials, unclear staffing, and unverifiable claims
• What to ask before you sign a pentesting services agreement

Red Flag #1: When Penetration Testing Firms Misrepresent Cybersecurity Certifications

A common way some penetration testing firms try to look more qualified than they are is by listing impressive certifications and displaying certification logos without giving you a clean way to verify who actually holds them. Certifications can matter because they signal baseline training and hands-on skill, but the only thing that truly counts is whether the specific people testing your environment have the experience and credentials the vendor implies. If a penetration testing company makes broad claims like “our team is fully certified” while avoiding names, credential IDs, or verifiable proof, treat that as a serious warning sign.

The fix is simple: verify. Before you sign with any penetration testing provider, ask for the names of the testers assigned to your engagement and request evidence for any certifications the vendor uses as a selling point. Legitimate pen testing firms will not act offended by basic due diligence. They will provide credential details you can confirm directly with the issuing body, and they will explain how those credentials map to the scope you are buying, whether that’s web application testing, internal network testing, cloud configuration review, or a blended assessment. If a cybersecurity testing firm stalls, changes its story, or pushes you to “trust the brand,” you should assume the marketing does not match delivery.

How to protect yourself:

Ask for the full names of the specific testers assigned to your engagement, not just roles or initials.

Request proof of certifications the vendor highlights, including a credential ID or verification link where available.

Verify directly with the issuing body, using official validation tools or support channels.

Be skeptical of generic claims like “fully certified team” with no names or documentation.

• Ask for the full names of the specific testers assigned to your engagement, not just roles or initials.
• Request proof of certifications the vendor highlights, including a credential ID or verification link where available.
• Verify directly with the issuing body, using official validation tools or support channels.
• Be skeptical of generic claims like “fully certified team” with no names or documentation.
• Prefer penetration testing companies that provide a short tester bio, relevant project experience, and a clear mapping from tester capability to your scope.

Security companies don’t just drop logos on a page and hope you won’t notice. They give you names, resumes, and credentials that you can actually verify. If a vendor stalls or dodges when you ask, walk away.

Verification Links:

Offensive Security, certificate verification support and requests
https://help.offsec.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

(ISC)², “Member Verification” page (official way to verify an (ISC)² member)
https://www.isc2.org/MemberVerification

GIAC, certification verification (GIAC Certified Professionals directory)
https://www.giac.org/certified-professionals/

CompTIA, certification verification (CertMetrics login and verification workflows)
https://www.certmetrics.com/comptia/

CREST, find a member company (for verifying CREST member organizations)
https://www.crest-approved.org/members/

Red Flag #2: When Pentesting Companies Hint at Government Ties Without Proof

Some penetration testing firms try to boost credibility by implying they have government relationships or “agency-level” affiliations. You’ll see this when a vendor uses federal logos, name-drops government teams, or leans on vague language like “trusted by government” without giving you anything you can independently confirm. That kind of marketing is meant to shortcut your due diligence. In reality, legitimate federal work leaves a paper trail: the company can point to contract vehicles, award records, or other verifiable artifacts. If a penetration testing company won’t provide that level of clarity, treat the claim as unproven and evaluate them on what you can actually verify, such as tester qualifications, methodology, deliverables, and references you can contact.

How to protect yourself:

• Ask for specifics: contract name, agency, time period, and whether the work was prime or subcontract.
• Verify claims using official government award databases rather than screenshots or logos.
• Be cautious with vague references to incident response teams or programs. Names get used loosely in marketing, and “CERT” can refer to an organization, not a certification.
• Prefer penetration testing providers who prove credibility through transparent scope, named testers, and reproducible technical evidence, not implied prestige.

Reference and Verification Links:

USAspending.gov, official open data source for federal spending and awards
https://www.usaspending.gov/

USAspending.gov, award search (find contracts and recipients)
https://www.usaspending.gov/search

System for Award Management (SAM.gov), official U.S. government site for entity registration and contractor records
https://sam.gov/

SAM.gov, entity registration and Unique Entity ID (UEI) getting started
https://sam.gov/entity-registration

CISA alert, “US-CERT and ICS-CERT Transition to CISA” (explains status and consolidation of those brands)
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/02/24/us-cert-and-ics-cert-transition-cisa

CISA, Industrial Control Systems topic page (how CISA frames ICS cybersecurity work and resources)
https://www.cisa.gov/topics/industrial-control-systems

Red Flag #3: When Penetration Testing Firms Crown Themselves “#1”

Be skeptical any time penetration testing firms claim they are “#1” based on a ranking they published themselves or on a list that has unclear ownership, unclear criteria, or paid placement. Self-published “Top 10 penetration testing companies” posts can look like independent research, but they are often just marketing content designed to shape perception and capture search traffic. That does not automatically mean the vendor is incompetent, but it does mean you should treat the claim as unverified until you can validate it through objective evidence.

Instead of trusting rankings, evaluate penetration testing companies using signals you can check. Do they publish a clear methodology and rules of engagement? Will they name the testers assigned to your engagement and provide verifiable credentials? Can they provide references you can contact, and sample report sections that demonstrate real exploitation evidence rather than generic scanner output? Do they define scope and limitations precisely, and do they offer retesting to confirm fixes? The strongest penetration testing providers win work because they produce repeatable outcomes and clear documentation, not because they self-award trophies in blog posts.

What to check before trusting any “best penetration testing company” claim:

• Does the vendor rely on measurable proof of capability (methodology, staff, references, sample deliverables) rather than slogans?
• Who published the ranking, and is the publisher independent from the vendors listed?
• Are the evaluation criteria public, objective, and consistently applied?
• Is there evidence of real recognition, such as peer-reviewed awards, independent analyst reports, or reputable industry programs?

Reference Links:

FTC, Endorsement Guides (rules and expectations around endorsements, testimonials, and disclosures)
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/endorsements-influencers-reviews

FTC, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255

FTC, “Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses” (disclosures when ads resemble editorial content)
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/native-advertising-guide-businesses

Red Flag #4: When Penetration Testing Firms Misrepresent Team Size and Staffing

Some penetration testing firms market themselves as having a large bench of “full-time senior experts” when the reality is much smaller or heavily contractor-based. A lean team is not a problem. Many excellent penetration testing companies stay small on purpose because it keeps quality high and accountability clear. The red flag is when a vendor’s headcount claims do not match who will actually perform the work, how they staff engagements, and what capacity they can realistically deliver within your timeline.

This matters because staffing impacts outcomes. If a penetration testing provider oversells its team size, you may end up with testers you were not told about, last-minute subcontractors with unknown quality, or schedule pressure that pushes the engagement toward automated scanning instead of manual validation. The safest approach is to treat staffing as part of scope. You are not just buying a report. You are buying named expertise, time-on-target, and the ability to support remediation and retesting.

Here’s how to check:

• Ask who will perform the testing and who will write the report, including names and roles.
• Ask whether testers are employees or subcontractors, and whether any work will be outsourced.
• Request short bios or resumes for assigned testers and confirm relevant experience for your environment (cloud, web apps, internal network, AD, OT, etc.).
• Put staffing expectations in the statement of work (named testers or at least minimum qualifications, substitution rules, and notice requirements).

Reference Links:

NIST SP 800-115, Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment (planning, staffing, and conducting security testing)
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/115/final

OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG), methodology benchmark for web application testing
https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/

CREST, professional standards and guidance for penetration testing (credentialing and quality signals)
https://www.crest-approved.org/

Red Flag #5: When Security Testing Companies Aren’t Transparent About Who Will Do the Work

Some penetration testing firms present themselves as strictly “in-house” while staffing engagements with subcontractors or external testers that the client never approved or even knew were involved. Using contractors is not inherently bad. Many reputable penetration testing companies use them for niche expertise or to meet scheduling demands. The red flag is a lack of transparency. If a pentesting company markets “no outsourcing” or implies only employees will access your systems, but then assigns work to third parties without clear disclosure and controls, you should treat that as a serious governance and risk issue.

This matters because staffing directly affects confidentiality, access control, and accountability. You are granting a security testing provider privileged visibility into your environment, sometimes including internal credentials, sensitive data, or production-like systems. You need to know who will access what, where they are located, and what contractual and technical safeguards apply. High-quality penetration testing firms handle this cleanly: they disclose whether testers are employees or subcontractors, restrict access to least privilege, document data-handling rules, and put the staffing and location constraints in writing.

How to protect yourself:

• Ask for the names and roles of the people who will access your systems and produce the report.
• Require disclosure of subcontractors and require written client approval before any third party participates.
• Confirm where testing will be performed (country/region) and whether any data will leave your environment.
• Ensure the statement of work covers confidentiality, access controls, and data handling, including retention and secure deletion.
• If your requirements include “U.S.-only personnel” or “no offshore access,” put it explicitly in the contract.

Reference Links:

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (useful for contractor access expectations, access control, and system security requirements)
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/171/r2/final

NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Security and Privacy Controls (baseline controls relevant to third-party access, access control, and confidentiality)
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/final

NIST SP 800-115, Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment (planning and controls around security testing activities)
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/115/final

Red Flag #6: When Pentest Companies Fake Reviews

Testimonials can help you shortlist penetration testing firms, but they are also easy to manipulate. The red flag is not “a vendor has reviews.” It’s when the reviews are vague, unattributed, or impossible to verify, especially when the vendor uses them as a primary credibility signal. In security testing, trust matters because you may be granting deep access to internal systems and sensitive data. If a penetration testing company relies on anonymous praise, generic quotes, or claims that do not connect to real, verifiable work, you should treat that as a cue to dig deeper before you engage.

A credible penetration testing provider should be able to back up marketing claims with something concrete: a reference you can contact (under NDA if needed), a case study that explains scope and outcomes without hype, and a report style that demonstrates real testing rather than copy-paste language. You do not need public logos or flashy quotes to make a good hiring decision. You need evidence that the firm does the work they claim, documents it properly, and stands behind it.

How to spot questionable testimonials:

• No full names, companies, or roles, and no way to verify the source.
• “Case studies” that read like ads instead of describing scope, constraints, and measurable outcomes.
• Quotes praising capabilities the vendor does not clearly offer elsewhere.
• Repeated generic phrasing with no attribution (“highly recommended,” “best in the business,” “excellent work”).
• Stock photos or generic headshots that appear unrelated to real clients.
• References the vendor refuses to enable even privately, such as a customer call under NDA.

Reference Links:

FTC, Endorsement Guides overview (endorsements, influencers, and reviews)
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/endorsements-influencers-reviews

FTC, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255

FTC, “Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses” (when promotional content resembles independent editorial)
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/native-advertising-guide-businesses

Red Flag #7: When Cyber Companies Fake Their Infrastructure

Some cybersecurity vendors describe operational capabilities like a Security Operations Center (SOC), Network Operations Center (NOC), managed detection and response (MDR), or “data center” services in ways that imply a level of infrastructure and staffing they may not actually operate themselves. Sometimes those capabilities are real and in-house. Other times they are partner-delivered, limited in scope, or described with marketing language that blurs what you are truly buying. The red flag is not that a vendor relies on partners or runs lean operations. The red flag is when the vendor cannot clearly explain what exists, who runs it, what coverage looks like, and what evidence you will receive as a customer.

If you are evaluating penetration testing firms, keep one thing straight: a strong penetration test does not require the vendor to run a SOC or a NOC. What matters is tester capability, a clear methodology, disciplined rules of engagement, safe execution, and reporting that proves real impact. When a vendor uses operational buzzwords to signal “enterprise readiness,” treat it like any other claim. Ask for definitions, boundaries, and proof, and put the parts you care about into the contract so they are deliverables rather than slogans.

How to protect yourself:

• Ask for a plain-language definition of what they mean by “SOC,” “NOC,” “MDR,” and “data center” in their offering.
• If they claim 24/7 operations, ask how coverage works (shifts, escalation, staffing levels) and what reports, metrics, or SLAs you receive.
• Ask whether the capability is operated in-house or delivered through a partner, and require disclosure of any third parties involved.
• Verify the business address and request a high-level staffing summary for relevant roles (for example, SOC analysts, incident responders, NOC engineers).
• Put operational claims into the statement of work if they are part of your buying decision.

Reference Links:

NIST SP 800-137, Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) for Federal Information Systems and Organizations
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-137/final

NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide (incident response operations that SOC teams commonly support)
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-61/rev-2/final

CISA, National Cyber Incident Response Plan (coordination and operational response context)
https://www.cisa.gov/national-cyber-incident-response-plan-ncirp

Red Flag #8: When Penetration Testing Firms Blur Scanning and Real Pentests

Vulnerability scanning plays a real role in a security program. It helps teams find known issues at scale and supports patch and configuration management. PTaaS can also be legitimate when it means human-led penetration testing delivered through a platform that improves scheduling, collaboration, evidence sharing, and retesting. The red flag is when penetration testing firms blur those terms and sell automated scanning as if it were a real penetration test. Scans and pentests can complement each other, but they are not interchangeable.

A penetration test requires human judgment: validating findings, proving exploitability, demonstrating impact, and following realistic attack paths that scanners cannot reason about, like authentication abuse, authorization flaws, business logic issues, chaining, and lateral movement. When a vendor markets “automated penetration testing” or uses PTaaS language while avoiding any description of manual testing, assume you are looking at a scanning service unless they can prove otherwise. The goal is not to argue about labels. The goal is to ensure you know what you are buying and whether it matches your risk and compliance needs.

How to tell when you are being sold a scan rather than a pentest:

• The report has no proof of exploitation: screenshots, request and response evidence, payloads, or clear reproduction steps.
• Findings are mostly generic CVE summaries and CVSS scores with little environment-specific context.
• There is no attack narrative: no chaining, no privilege escalation pathing, no lateral movement discussion where applicable.
• Web findings lack business logic testing, authorization testing, and application-specific abuse cases.
• The report reads like raw scanner output with branding rather than a tester-written assessment.

What to ask before you sign:

• Will you retest high and critical fixes, and what does retesting include?
• How much time is allocated for manual testing versus scanning?
• What methodology do you follow, and what does “manual validation” mean in your process?
• What evidence will be included in the report to prove impact?

Reference Links:

NIST SP 800-115, Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment
https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/115/final

OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG), methodology benchmark for web application security testing
https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/

PCI Security Standards Council, Penetration Testing Guidance (Information Supplement)
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/Penetration-Testing-Guidance-v1_1.pdf

Red Flag #9: When a Penetration Testing Firm Uses Legal Threats Instead of Transparency

Disputes happen in every industry. A professional penetration testing firm can have a disagreement with a former employee, a competitor, or a customer without it meaning anything about the quality of their work. The red flag is when a vendor responds to reasonable questions about scope, methodology, staffing, or deliverables with intimidation tactics, legal threats, or blanket demands for silence instead of straightforward answers. If a company’s first instinct is “lawyer up” rather than “show the evidence,” you should treat that as a governance risk, because it often correlates with poor transparency, weak documentation, and a culture that punishes scrutiny.

This matters to you as the buyer because penetration testing firms may gain access to internal networks, credentials, vulnerability data, and sensitive reports. You want a vendor that behaves predictably under pressure, documents decisions, and resolves issues professionally. If the sales process includes aggressive NDAs before scoping, hostile reactions to basic due diligence, or refusal to provide verifiable proof of claims, it is a sign you should slow down and verify everything through neutral sources, then put your requirements in writing.

How to protect yourself:

• Put key expectations in the statement of work: named roles, subcontractor disclosure, data handling, retention, and a clean retest process.
• Treat “trust us” responses as a signal to ask for documentation: methodology, sample sanitized report sections, staffing disclosure, and retest process.
• If you hear claims about government work, certifications, awards, or major clients, verify them through primary sources rather than marketing.
• Check public records for litigation and filings that may affect vendor stability or ownership, especially if the engagement requires long-term access or ongoing retesting.

Reference Links:

PACER, official federal court case search portal (“Find a Case”)
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/find-case

PACER Case Locator (nationwide index across federal district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts)
https://pcl.uscourts.gov/

U.S. Courts, “Find a Case (PACER)” explainer (what PACER is and what it covers)
https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records/find-a-case-pacer

Colorado Judicial Branch, Docket Search (example of an official state judiciary docket search tool)
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/dockets

Colorado Secretary of State, UCC Home (official UCC filing and search entry point)
https://www.sos.state.co.us/ucc/

Delaware Division of Corporations, UCC Search information (Delaware’s official guidance)
https://corp.delaware.gov/uccsearch/

Red Flag #10: Using NDAs to Limit Normal Buyer Feedback and Accountability

Non-disclosure agreements can be appropriate in security work. You may share network diagrams, credentials, vulnerability details, or incident information, and both sides need clear confidentiality rules. The red flag is when a security testing company uses an NDA (or contract language bundled with it) to go beyond protecting sensitive information and instead restrict normal, truthful feedback, dispute discussions, or professional review. Overbroad non-disparagement clauses, vague “reputation harm” language, or restrictions that chill even private escalation can make it harder for you to hold a vendor accountable if the engagement does not match what was promised.

A healthy contract protects both sides and still leaves room for routine realities: you may need to share findings with auditors, regulators, counsel, insurers, or internal stakeholders; you may need to escalate a quality issue; and you may need to communicate factual concerns to get the work corrected. Strong penetration testing firms do not fear those guardrails. They define confidentiality clearly, specify what data they will collect and retain, outline dispute and remediation processes, and provide a retest path that resolves issues without intimidation.

How to protect yourself:

• If something feels off, have counsel review it before you sign, especially if the vendor also asks for early payment or broad limitations on liability.
• Read confidentiality and “public statements” clauses carefully, including any non-disparagement language embedded in the SOW, MSA, or NDA.
• Ensure the agreement allows you to share necessary information with auditors, counsel, insurers, and regulators, and internally on a need-to-know basis.
• Require clear remediation and retesting terms: what happens if the deliverable is late, incomplete, or materially inconsistent with scope.
• Push back on vague “reputation harm” triggers or blanket restrictions that prevent factual communication.

Reference Links:

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “Nondisclosure agreement” overview
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/227.7103-7

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “Non-disparagement clause” overview
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondisparagement_clause

FTC, Endorsement Guides (context for truthful reviews and disclosure expectations when endorsements are used in marketing)
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/endorsements-influencers-reviews

Final Thoughts: Choosing a Pentesting Company You Can Actually Trust

Hiring penetration testing firms is not a normal vendor decision. You are giving an outside team deep visibility into your environment, and sometimes direct access to systems that support revenue, operations, and customer trust. That means your selection process should prioritize competence and transparency over marketing. The goal is simple: choose penetration testing companies that can prove what they do, explain how they do it, and document results in a way you can use for remediation, governance, and audits.

If you are evaluating penetration testing providers, use a verification-first approach. Confirm credentials through the issuing body, validate who will actually perform the work, and insist on a clear methodology that distinguishes manual testing from automated scanning. Ask for a sample sanitized report section so you can see the level of evidence and context you will receive. Put key expectations in writing, including subcontractor disclosure, data handling, retesting, and timelines. Most importantly, pay attention to how the vendor responds to basic due diligence. Trustworthy pen testing firms welcome scrutiny because it matches how they work.

A practical due diligence checklist:

• Verify any highlighted certifications using the issuing organization’s official verification tools.
• Validate staffing and accountability, including who will test, who will write the report, and whether subcontractors will be involved.
• Review the scope and methodology in plain language, including how findings are validated and what evidence the report will include.
• Confirm data handling terms: what access is required, what data is retained, how it is protected, and when it is deleted.
• Ask about retesting and remediation support so you are not left with a report you cannot operationalize.

The best penetration testing firms do not rely on inflated claims or buzzwords. They set expectations clearly, execute safely, and produce evidence-driven reporting that helps you reduce risk. If you want a second set of eyes on a proposal or scope from a penetration testing vendor, reach out. We can help you sanity-check the engagement so you know you are buying real testing and not a deliverable that only looks convincing.

Book a consultation to review your pentest scope, vendor proposal, or security testing plan.

This article is educational and reflects general industry practices and publicly available information. It does not identify or accuse any specific company or individual. Examples are illustrative and are included to help buyers evaluate penetration testing firms using independent verification and documented due diligence.

FAQ Section

Want to go deeper? Check out our Ultimate Guide to Penetration Testing for a full breakdown of testing methodologies, tools, and real-world applications. Want to read more about Facebook Sympathy Scams that are on the rise? Read more here.