Secure Code Review
Manual Source Code Security Review — File, Function, and Line-Level Findings with Corrected Code Examples
Automated static analysis tools find patterns. Manual secure code review finds logic — authentication bypass, authorization model flaws, cryptographic misuse, and business logic vulnerabilities that no tool can detect. This is expert review at the file, function, and line level.
The review covers authentication, authorization, injection prevention, cryptographic implementation, sensitive data handling, dependency security, and infrastructure as code. Every finding is pinpointed to a specific file, function, and line number with a corrected code example — not a generic recommendation, but the actual code your team should write.
Languages supported include Java, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Ruby, PHP, .NET, Kotlin/Swift, and Terraform/CloudFormation. SAST configuration recommendations are included so your tooling catches similar patterns going forward.
Who This Is For
Ideal clients for this engagement.
The Problem
What this engagement addresses.
SAST Tool Limitations
Static analysis tools excel at pattern matching but cannot understand application logic. Authorization model flaws, business logic vulnerabilities, and cryptographic misuse produce few or no SAST findings — yet they represent the highest-impact vulnerability classes.
Authorization Logic Complexity
Authorization is implemented across controllers, middleware, services, and data access layers. A review limited to any single layer misses the gaps between them. Manual review traces authorization enforcement end-to-end.
Generic Remediation Guidance
Most security findings come with recommendations like 'implement input validation' or 'use parameterized queries.' Engineering teams need corrected code in their language, framework, and coding style — not generic advice.
Dependency and IaC Blind Spots
Application code review that ignores dependency security and infrastructure as code misses the attack surface that surrounds the application. A secure application deployed on misconfigured infrastructure is still exploitable.
Deliverables
What you receive.
Technical Findings Report
Each finding pinpointed to file, function, and line number. Includes vulnerability description, risk rating, exploitation scenario, and corrected code example in the application's language and framework. Findings categorized by domain: auth, authz, injection, crypto, sensitive data, dependencies, IaC.
Executive Summary
Non-technical summary of code security posture, systemic patterns, top findings with business impact, and strategic recommendations for engineering leadership.
SAST Configuration Recommendations
Custom rules and configuration guidance for your static analysis tooling to detect patterns similar to manual findings. Reduces recurrence of the same vulnerability classes in future code.
Corrected Code Examples
For every finding, a specific corrected code example in the application's language and framework — not pseudocode or generic guidance. Ready for engineering team review and implementation.
Methodology
How the engagement works.
Codebase Onboarding & Scoping
Week 1
- Repository access and build environment setup
- Architecture review and critical path identification
- Scope prioritization — authentication, authorization, data handling, external interfaces
- SAST baseline review (if existing tooling is in place)
Manual Code Review
Weeks 1 – 4
- Authentication implementation review
- Authorization model tracing across all layers
- Injection sink and source analysis
- Cryptographic implementation review
- Sensitive data handling and storage patterns
- Dependency security analysis
- Infrastructure as code review (Terraform, CloudFormation)
Reporting & Debrief
Within 5 business days of review completion
- Technical findings report with corrected code examples
- SAST configuration recommendations
- Executive summary delivery
- Live debrief with engineering team — walkthrough of findings and code patterns
Engagement Tiers
Scoped to your architecture.
Focused
Up to 25,000 lines of code. Single application or service. Targeted review of authentication, authorization, and highest-risk code paths.
- Manual review of auth, authz, and critical paths
- File/function/line-level findings
- Corrected code examples
- SAST configuration recommendations
Standard
Up to 50,000 lines of code. Full domain coverage — auth, authz, injection, crypto, sensitive data, dependencies. Suitable for most single-application reviews.
- Everything in Focused
- Full security domain coverage
- Dependency security analysis
- Infrastructure as code review
Comprehensive
Up to 100,000 lines of code. Multi-service or monorepo review with cross-service trust boundary analysis. For complex applications or platform codebases.
- Everything in Standard
- Cross-service trust boundary analysis
- Multi-language review support
- Extended architecture-level recommendations
Prerequisites
- Repository access (read-only is sufficient)
- Build and deployment documentation or working build environment
- Architecture documentation or system diagram where available
- Description of authentication and authorization model
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions.
How is manual code review different from running a SAST tool?
SAST tools find pattern-based issues — SQL injection sinks, hardcoded credentials, known vulnerable function calls. Manual review finds logic-level vulnerabilities — authorization model flaws, business logic bypass, cryptographic misuse, and architectural issues that no tool can detect. The two approaches are complementary, not interchangeable.
What languages do you support?
Java, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Ruby, PHP, .NET (C#), Kotlin, Swift, Terraform, and CloudFormation. If your stack is not listed, ask — the methodology adapts to most languages with established security patterns.
Can you review our infrastructure as code alongside application code?
Yes. Terraform, CloudFormation, and Kubernetes manifests are reviewed as part of the engagement. Application security does not stop at the code boundary — misconfigured infrastructure undermines secure application code.
Related Offerings
Often paired with this engagement.
Penetration Testing
Black-box complement to code review — validate that code-level findings are exploitable from an external attacker's perspective.
API Security Assessment
Runtime API testing that validates authorization enforcement discovered during code review.
Developer Security Training
Train your team on the vulnerability patterns found during code review — prevent recurrence at the source.
Pipeline Security Implementation
Integrate SAST, dependency scanning, and code signing into your CI/CD pipeline based on code review findings.
AppSec Program Design
Establish secure coding standards and review processes that institutionalize the patterns identified in code review.
Ready to discuss this engagement?
30-minute discovery call. We will discuss your application architecture, your specific concerns, and whether this assessment is the right fit.