Secure Code Reviews
Find security flaws in critical code through focused manual review supported by appropriate automated analysis.
We perform deep source-code reviews using a hybrid manual and automated approach to detect security flaws in critical systems and services. Reviews can be conducted before release or as part of ongoing assurance activities, with findings mapped to recognised weakness categories for traceability.
When To Engage Us
- Teams preparing critical software for release
- Developers working with sensitive data or trust boundaries
- Organisations seeking assurance beyond automated scanning
What We Cover
- Authentication and authorisation logic
- Input validation and data handling
- Cryptography and secrets management
- Dependencies and security-critical implementation paths
Clear Outputs
Typical Engagement Outputs
Final outputs are agreed during scoping so they support the decisions your team needs to make.
- Code-specific findings with evidence
- OWASP and CWE traceability where applicable
- Actionable developer remediation guidance
- Technical walkthrough with engineering teams
Define The Right Boundary
How We Scope It
A useful engagement begins with a clear assurance question. For this service, scoping normally considers:
- The codebase, language, frameworks, commit or release, and security objective
- Security-critical components, trust boundaries, user roles, sensitive data, and abuse cases
- Repository access, build instructions, dependencies, test environments, and developer availability
- Review depth, reporting format, disclosure handling, and remediation or re-review expectations
From Question To Uplift
How We Work
The approach is adapted to your environment, while keeping communication, evidence handling, and decision points clear.
Understand The Code
Establish architecture, trust boundaries, critical flows, roles, data, and the code paths that matter most.
Review Deeply
Use focused manual analysis supported by appropriate automated tools to trace security-relevant behaviour.
Validate Findings
Confirm reachability, exploit conditions, impact, and affected code while minimising false positives.
Work With Engineers
Provide code-specific remediation guidance, walk through material issues, and validate agreed changes where scoped.
Common Questions
Before You Engage
Is secure code review the same as running a static-analysis tool?
No. Automated analysis can support coverage, but specialist review is needed to understand business logic, trust boundaries, authorisation decisions, data flows, and exploit conditions.
How much of the codebase needs to be reviewed?
That depends on the objective and risk. A review may cover the full repository or focus on security-critical components, recent changes, exposed interfaces, or high-value workflows.
How is source code handled?
Repository access, local handling, storage, evidence, and deletion requirements are agreed before access is provided and aligned with the sensitivity of the codebase.
Related Insights
Your Penetration Test Is Only as Good as the Question
The same focus on objectives, boundaries, access, and actionable outputs helps shape a useful code review.
READ INSIGHT →Your AI Agent Has a Badge and Keys
Review security-critical code paths where AI systems handle tools, data, identities, and autonomous actions.
READ INSIGHT →Explore Related Services
Start With A Conversation
Need help defining the right scope?
Tell us what you are trying to protect or validate. We will help shape an engagement around the outcome you need.
> TALK TO OUR TEAM_