A secure code review examines your application's source code for security flaws in how it is written — logic vulnerabilities, injection, broken access control, hardcoded secrets, weak cryptography and insecure design. We combine static analysis (SAST) for breadth with expert manual review for depth, because tools flag patterns but only a human can reason about business logic and validate real risk. It is the white-box complement to penetration testing: the source shows flaws that are hard to reach from outside, while a pentest proves exploitability. Findings are prioritised by real risk, mapped to OWASP and your compliance controls, with a retest included.
// 01 What is a secure code review?
A secure code review is a security-focused examination of your application's source code, looking for the vulnerabilities that live in how the software is actually written rather than only in how it behaves at runtime. Where a penetration test attacks the application from the outside, a code review reads it from the inside — and that inside view reveals a distinct class of problems: a credential hardcoded in a config file, a logic flaw buried in a code path that is hard to trigger externally, an outdated cryptographic function, or a subtle access-control gap that only shows up when you read the authorisation logic.
Done properly, it is not a single technique but a combination. Automated static analysis provides coverage across a large codebase quickly; expert manual review provides the judgement to interpret what the tools find, discard the false positives, and identify the design and logic issues no scanner understands. The two together are what separates a real review from a scan.
// 02 Code review vs penetration testing
These are complementary, not competing, and the strongest assurance comes from combining them — a white-box engagement that tests the running application and reads the source.
| Aspect | Source code review | Penetration testing |
|---|---|---|
| Perspective | Inside — the source | Outside — the running app |
| Finds best | Hardcoded secrets, logic, crypto, design flaws | Real-world exploitability, chained attacks |
| Coverage | Every code path, including hard-to-reach ones | What's reachable at runtime |
| Proves impact | Identifies the flaw | Demonstrates the exploit |
| Best combined | Together as a white-box assessment | |
// 03 What we find in the code
Injection & input handling
SQL, command and template injection, unsafe deserialization, and missing input validation traced to their source.
Access control & logic
Authorisation checks that are missing, inconsistent or bypassable, and business-logic flaws visible only in the code.
Secrets & configuration
Hardcoded credentials, API keys and tokens, insecure defaults, and secrets that should be in a vault.
Cryptography & design
Weak or misused cryptography, insecure randomness, and structural design weaknesses in how security is implemented.
// 04 How we run a code review
Scope & context
Understand the application, its architecture, its trust boundaries and the code most worth focusing on.
Automated analysis
Run static analysis (SAST) tuned to the stack for broad coverage of known vulnerability patterns.
Manual review
Expert review of authentication, authorisation, data handling and business logic — where the serious flaws hide.
Validation
Confirm each finding is real, remove false positives, and assess true exploitability and impact.
Report & remediate
Prioritised findings with the exact code location, business impact and specific fix guidance.
Retest
Verify the fixes in the updated code — included, so you can evidence closure.
// 05 Common findings
Hardcoded credentials in source
Database passwords, API keys or signing secrets committed into the code or config — often also exposed in the version-control history.
Missing authorisation checks
Endpoints or functions that verify who the user is but not whether they are allowed to perform the action — obvious in the code, invisible to a scanner.
Weak or misused cryptography
Outdated algorithms, insecure randomness for tokens, or encryption implemented incorrectly.
Business-logic flaws
Flawed workflow or validation logic — such as trusting a client-supplied price or role — readable in the source.
// 06 Standards we align to
- OWASP Code Review Guide and OWASP Top 10 / ASVS — the reference for application vulnerability classes.
- NIST SP 800-53 and secure-development guidance; findings mapped to CWE identifiers.
- Compliance: mapped to PCI DSS, SOC 2, ISO 27001 (which expects security testing in development under Annex A 8.29) and the GCC frameworks — see our requirements finder.
// 07 Frequently asked questions
What is a secure code review?
A security examination of source code for logic, injection, access-control, secrets and crypto flaws — combining SAST for breadth with expert manual review for depth.
How is it different from a pentest?
A pentest attacks the running app from outside; code review reads the source from inside, catching flaws hard to reach externally. They complement each other.
Is it just a SAST scan?
No. SAST provides coverage but many false positives and no logic understanding. A real review validates findings and adds manual review for design and logic flaws.
What languages can you review?
The common stacks — JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Java, C#/.NET, PHP, Go, Ruby, iOS and Android — and their frameworks. The vulnerability classes recur across all.