Secure code review: catch flaws in the source
Gjethe reviews your source code for security flaws that testing from the outside can miss: weak authentication and authorisation, unsafe input handling, exposed secrets, risky dependencies and dangerous patterns. We combine tooling with a manual read by developers and give you fixes you can apply.
- Free first consultation
- Written quote for your project
- Flexible payment milestones
At a glance
- Reviews
- Web, mobile and API codebases
- Method
- Tooling plus manual developer review
- Focus
- Auth, input, secrets, dependencies
- Output
- Findings in context, with fixes
Definition
What is secure code review?
A secure code review is an examination of an application's source code to find security weaknesses, by reading the code and its logic rather than only testing the running system from outside.
Some weaknesses are hard to see from the outside but obvious in the code: a permission check that is commented out, a secret committed to the repository, input passed straight into a query, a library with a known flaw. A secure code review reads the source the way a careful colleague would, combining automated analysis with a manual review by developers who know the frameworks you use. It pairs well with a penetration test: the test shows what is reachable, the review shows why, and together they cover far more than either alone.
Who is it for?
Development teams before release
A review before shipping catches flaws while they are cheap to fix.
Products handling sensitive data
When the stakes are high, reading the code adds assurance a black box test cannot.
Teams that inherited a codebase
A review maps the security state of code you did not write before you build on it.
Companies answering due diligence
Investors and acquirers increasingly ask about code quality and security.
What's included, and what you keep
What's included
- Agreed scope and access to the repository
- Automated static analysis of the codebase
- Dependency and licence risk review
- Secret and credential scanning of the history
- Manual review of authentication and sessions
- Manual review of authorisation and access checks
- Input and output handling review
- Review of data handling and storage
- Review of risky patterns and framework misuse
- Findings shown in context, with code references
- Fix guidance for each finding
- A review call with your developers
What you receive
Handed over at the end. Yours to keep.
- Secure code review report
- Findings with file and line references
- Severity rating and fix for each finding
- Dependency and secret findings
- Developer review call
What we look for in the code
- Permission checks missing, bypassed or inconsistent
- User input used in queries, commands or templates
- Secrets, keys or passwords committed to the repository
- Weak password, session or token handling
- Sensitive data logged or stored without protection
- Outdated or risky third-party dependencies
- Unsafe file handling, uploads or deserialisation
- Error handling that leaks internal detail
Why code review and testing work best together
A penetration test tells you what an attacker can reach from the outside. A code review tells you why the weakness exists and whether the same mistake is repeated elsewhere. One flawed pattern, copied across many features, might show up as a single finding in a test but as a root cause in a review.
Reading the code also reaches places tests struggle to hit: rarely used paths, admin-only functions, background jobs and error branches. We combine static analysis, which is fast and wide, with a manual read by developers, which understands intent and context, so the findings are accurate and the fixes fit how your application is actually built.
Findings you can act on, not a wall of warnings
Point a static analysis tool at a codebase and it will often return hundreds of warnings. Many do not apply, some are duplicates, and a few are genuinely serious, but buried. Handed over raw, that output is more likely to be ignored than fixed, and the real problems stay in place. The value of a review is in the triage: deciding what is actually exploitable in your application, and why.
So our report reads like notes from a senior engineer, not a tool dump. Each finding points to the exact file and line, explains the risk in context, rates how serious it is and shows the change that resolves it. Where the same mistake appears in several places, we say so, because fixing the pattern once is better than patching ten symptoms. The result is a list your developers can work through in priority order and actually finish.
Because we are a development team, we can go further than reporting. We can open the pull requests ourselves, or review your team's fixes, so the weaknesses are closed rather than just catalogued.
How secure code review works, step by step
Every step has a clear output you can review. Timing is agreed in your quote.
- 1
Scope
Repositories, languages, frameworks and priorities agreed in writing.
- 2
Set up
Read access to the code and a short walkthrough of the architecture.
- 3
Analyse
Static analysis, dependency and secret scanning across the codebase.
- 4
Review
Manual reading of the security-critical code by developers.
- 5
Report
Findings in context, with references, severity and fixes.
- 6
Debrief
A call to walk your developers through the findings.
Tools, and what shapes your quote
Pricing is based on your project and agreed in your quote. These are the things that move it.
| Factor | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Size of the codebase | More code, and more languages, mean more to analyse and read. |
| Languages and frameworks | Some stacks need specialised review knowledge and tooling. |
| Depth of review | A focused review of critical modules differs from a full codebase read. |
| Code quality and history | A tangled codebase or a long history takes longer to review safely. |
| Fix support | Implementing fixes, rather than only reporting them, adds effort. |
| Area | Tools |
|---|---|
| Static analysis | Semgrep, language-specific analysers |
| Dependencies | dependency scanners, licence checks |
| Secrets | history secret scanning |
| Guidance | OWASP ASVS, OWASP Top 10, CWE references |
Common mistakes to avoid
What we see go wrong most often, and how a good project avoids it.
Relying on static analysis alone
Tools flag patterns but miss intent and logic flaws; a manual read catches what they cannot.
Ignoring the commit history
Secrets removed from the latest code often still sit in the repository's history.
Reviewing only new code
Serious flaws often live in old, trusted modules nobody has looked at in years.
Leaving dependencies unchecked
Most applications run far more third-party code than their own; its weaknesses are yours too.
Frequently asked questions
How do you access our code securely?
Through read access you grant and revoke, under an NDA. We can review in your environment where you prefer, and we hold no copy after the engagement.
Which languages do you review?
Commonly JavaScript and TypeScript, Python, PHP and the frameworks built on them. Tell us your stack and we will confirm the fit before starting.
Is a code review better than a penetration test?
They answer different questions and are strongest together. The test shows what is reachable; the review shows why and whether the pattern repeats.
Do you check our dependencies?
Yes. We review third-party libraries for known weaknesses and licence risks, since most applications depend heavily on them.
Will you find hard-coded secrets?
We scan the code and its history for committed keys, passwords and tokens, and advise on rotating anything exposed.
Can you fix what you find?
Yes. As a development team we can implement the fixes or pair with your developers to apply them.
Do you review mobile app code?
Yes, for common mobile stacks, including how the app stores data and talks to its backend.
Do you sign an NDA?
Yes, before any access to your code. The terms are agreed in writing, and findings are shared only with the people you name.
How much of our codebase do you read?
As much as the scope allows. For a focused review we concentrate on the security-critical parts: anything touching authentication, permissions, payments and personal data. For a full review we read the whole codebase.
Related services
Penetration Testing
Authorised, scoped security tests with a fix-it report.
Web App Penetration Testing
Manual OWASP testing of logins, access control and logic.
API Security Testing
REST and GraphQL tests against the OWASP API Top 10.
Vibe-Coded App Repair
Secure, debug and ship apps built with Lovable, Bolt, v0 or Cursor.
Custom Software Development
Software built around your exact process.
QA & Software Testing
Manual and automated testing across browsers and devices.
DevOps & CI/CD
Automated pipelines, containers and infrastructure as code.
Secure Code Review by industry
Find the flaws in your source.
Tell us what you need. You get an honest assessment, a clear plan and a written quote. The first consultation is always free.
- What happens next
- 1You tell us what you need
- 2We aim to reply within 24 hours with questions
- 3You get a written quote for your project