SAST & Secure Code Review

Static analysis tools are good at pattern matching and bad at judgment. Run one against a real codebase and you get thousands of results, most of which are unreachable, already mitigated, or simply wrong — and a development team that learns to ignore the tool entirely.

Our secure code review inverts that ratio. Tooling gives us coverage; an application security engineer reads the code, confirms exploitability, discards the noise, and writes the fix guidance. You receive findings you can act on, not a scanner export.

What the review covers

• Authentication and authorization logic — where access decisions are made, and every path that reaches sensitive functionality without passing through them
• Input handling and injection sinks — SQL, command, template, deserialization and path traversal sinks traced back to untrusted sources
• Cryptography — algorithm and mode selection, key management and rotation, randomness, password hashing and storage
• Secrets management — credentials, tokens and keys in source, configuration and commit history
• Dependency and supply-chain risk — software composition analysis, known-vulnerable packages, SBOM generation, transitive dependency exposure
• Infrastructure as code — Terraform, CloudFormation and Kubernetes manifests reviewed for exposed services, over-broad IAM policies and missing encryption
• CI/CD pipeline security — build secret handling, artifact integrity, and workflow permissions that allow a pull request to reach production credentials
• Error handling and logging — sensitive data written to logs, information disclosure through errors, and gaps in security-relevant logging

Languages and stacks

Java and Kotlin, Swift and Objective-C, JavaScript and TypeScript (including Node.js and the major front-end frameworks), Python, PHP, Go, C#/.NET and Ruby. Tooling includes Semgrep and CodeQL alongside language-specific analyzers, with rules tuned to your codebase rather than run at defaults.

What you get

Findings referenced to file and line with the vulnerable code quoted, CWE classification and CVSS score, a suggested fix — as a diff where the change is small — and, if you want it, the findings delivered as pull-request comments in your repository rather than as a PDF nobody opens. A tuned rule set is handed back at the end so your own pipeline keeps catching the same classes of issue.

Who it is for

Teams that already run a pentest and keep seeing the same bug class return, teams whose ISO 27001 auditor is asking about A 8.28 secure coding, and teams building software where a single logic flaw is expensive — payments, healthcare, identity and infrastructure.

Frequently asked