Best for
- Products that have never had a security pass
- Preparing for a customer security questionnaire or audit
- Fixing the classics: injection, broken access control, leaked secrets
What you give it
- The codebase, and what the system protects (data, money, access)
- Decisions where a fix changes behaviour users can see
What you get back
- Findings ranked by exploitability and impact, each with evidence
- Direct fixes for code-level issues, applied within your patterns
- A hardening plan for what needs design change, plus the checks that keep new code clean
How it works
- Maps the attack surface: every entry point, every trust boundary, every secret.
- Checks the highest-yield classes first: access control, injection, authentication, secrets, unsafe deserialisation, exposed data.
- Proves findings with evidence (a path, a payload shape, a config line) — no vague fear.
- Fixes code-level findings directly and verifies with tests.
- Ranks what remains by exploitability x impact, and installs guardrail checks for the future.
Example
You: Security-review the customer portal before the enterprise deal's audit.
Result: Eleven findings: one critical (an export endpoint missing the tenant check — any signed-in user could pull another company's data), three high (secrets in the repo history, no rate limit on login, session cookies missing flags), the rest medium/low. Critical and highs fixed and tested; a plan and a pre-merge checklist for the remainder.
Limits — please read
- A code review is not a penetration test; it will say when you need one of those.
- Infrastructure outside the repository (cloud config, network) is covered as far as its files reach.
- Cryptographic design beyond standard patterns gets flagged for a specialist, not improvised.