// APPLICATION SECURITY

Secure Code Review

Manual and automated code review to identify security flaws at the source level.

CRESTCertified Reviewers
10+Languages Supported
OWASPCode Review Guide
SDLIntegrated

Secure Code Review

Automated scanners catch patterns — skilled reviewers catch intent. Intelliroot's secure code review combines SAST tooling with deep manual analysis to surface the vulnerabilities that static tools routinely miss: business logic flaws, insecure cryptographic usage, race conditions, deserialization weaknesses, and hardcoded secrets buried within complex codebases. Reviews are conducted by CREST-certified analysts following the OWASP Code Review Guide and your organisation's own Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) policies.

We support all major application languages — Java, Python, Go, Node.js, PHP, C#, Ruby, and Kotlin — across monolithic, microservice, and serverless architectures. Findings are contextualised to your stack, triaged by exploitability and business impact, and delivered with concrete, developer-ready remediation guidance. Every engagement concludes with a developer debrief so fixes happen faster and the same class of vulnerability does not reappear in the next sprint.

Why Manual Code Review Is Irreplaceable

Logic Flaws Are Invisible to Scanners

Business logic vulnerabilities — price manipulation, privilege escalation through workflow abuse, and broken authorisation flows — require a human analyst who understands application intent, not just syntax patterns.

Shift-Left Saves Remediation Cost

Finding a vulnerability in code review costs a fraction of fixing it post-deployment. Integrating review into your SDL prevents security debt from accumulating sprint after sprint.

Secrets & Crypto Misuse Are Pervasive

Hardcoded API keys, weak ciphers, broken random number generation, and insecure TLS configurations are common in production codebases and rarely flagged accurately by automated tools.

Compliance Demands Source-Level Evidence

PCI DSS Requirement 6, ISO 27001 Annex A.8.28, and SOC 2 CC8.1 all require secure development practices. A formal code review report from a CREST-certified firm satisfies audit evidence requirements.

What We Review

Injection & Input Handling

  • SQL, NoSQL, LDAP, and OS command injection
  • XSS sinks and unsafe DOM manipulation
  • Template injection in server-side rendering
  • Path traversal and file inclusion flaws
  • Unsafe deserialisation of untrusted data

Cryptography & Secrets

  • Weak or deprecated cipher suites (MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4)
  • Insecure random number generation
  • Hardcoded credentials, API keys, and tokens
  • Insecure key storage and certificate validation
  • Improper TLS configuration and certificate pinning

Authorisation & Business Logic

  • Missing or broken function-level access control
  • Insecure direct object references (IDOR)
  • Privilege escalation through parameter tampering
  • Race conditions in shared resource access
  • Business logic bypass and workflow abuse

Language-Specific & Framework Flaws

  • Java: unsafe reflection, XXE, Log4Shell patterns
  • Python: pickle deserialisation, SSTI, subprocess misuse
  • Go: goroutine race conditions, unsafe pointer usage
  • Node.js: prototype pollution, ReDoS, eval misuse
  • PHP: file inclusion, type juggling, open redirects

Our Review Process

01

Scoping & Codebase Orientation

Define review scope, agree on repository access method (Git, archive, or source code portal), identify critical modules, threat model assumptions, and any prior audit history. Establish a shared understanding of the application's business purpose and trust boundaries.

02

Automated SAST Baseline

Run calibrated SAST tools (Semgrep, CodeQL, SonarQube) against the target codebase to generate an initial finding baseline. Rules are tuned to the language and framework stack to minimise false positives before manual triage begins.

03

Manual Deep-Dive Review

Analysts trace data flows from untrusted input sources to sensitive sinks, review authentication and authorisation logic, inspect cryptographic implementations, and search for hardcoded secrets and insecure configurations — all guided by the OWASP Code Review Guide.

04

Business Logic & Architecture Analysis

Review application architecture, inter-service communication, trust boundary enforcement, and session management design. Identify logic-level vulnerabilities that only emerge when understanding the system's intended behaviour end-to-end.

05

Triage, Deduplication & Risk Rating

Consolidate automated and manual findings, remove duplicates and false positives, and assign CVSS 3.1 scores with contextual business-impact ratings. Prioritise findings by exploitability and potential blast radius within your environment.

06

Reporting & Developer Debrief

Deliver a detailed technical report with annotated code snippets, remediation guidance, and secure coding examples. Host a developer walkthrough session to ensure the engineering team understands findings and can implement durable fixes.

OWASP Code Review Guide SAST Integration Injection Flaws Crypto Misuse Hardcoded Secrets Deserialization Race Conditions Business Logic SDL Integration Java / Python / Go / Node.js

Frequently Asked Questions

Scope varies by codebase size and complexity. A focused review of 50,000–100,000 lines of business-critical code typically takes 5–10 business days. We recommend prioritising authentication modules, payment flows, and API layers for maximum impact within a fixed budget. Full application reviews of larger codebases are scoped individually.
We support multiple access methods: read-only Git clone via a dedicated short-lived token, encrypted archive transfer, or a customer-hosted code review portal. All code is reviewed within a sandboxed environment and deleted at project close. We sign a mutual NDA and data processing agreement before any access is granted.
A SAST scan runs automated pattern-matching rules and flags potential issues — it generates a list. A secure code review uses a human analyst who understands business context, data flows, and attacker intent. Manual review finds logic flaws, architectural weaknesses, and contextual vulnerabilities that no automated tool can detect. We recommend combining both for comprehensive coverage.
Yes. We provide findings in formats suitable for import into Jira, GitHub Issues, GitLab Issues, and Azure DevOps. Each finding includes a suggested ticket title, description, acceptance criteria for the fix, and a severity label. This allows your engineering team to start remediation immediately without manual re-entry.

Deliverables

Executive Summary Report

Risk posture overview, critical finding highlights, and strategic recommendations suitable for engineering leadership and audit committees.

Technical Findings Report

Full technical detail for each vulnerability with annotated code snippets, root cause analysis, CVSS score, and step-by-step remediation guidance.

Risk-Rated Vulnerability Register

Spreadsheet of all findings sorted by severity with status tracking columns, making it suitable as a living remediation tracker through to closure.

Secure Coding Guidelines

Language-specific secure coding guidance document tailored to your technology stack — a durable reference for developers addressing current and future code.

Retest & Closure Certificate

Post-remediation verification of critical and high findings with a signed closure certificate accepted by regulators and third-party auditors.

Developer Debrief Session

Live walkthrough of findings and remediation patterns with your engineering team — includes Q&A and secure coding examples for the most impactful vulnerability classes found.

GET STARTED
Accepting New Engagements · 24h Response

Request a Security Assessment

Tell us about your environment and security objectives. We'll design a bespoke assessment and deliver a detailed proposal within 48 hours.

Scoping Call with a Certified Consultant 45-minute deep-dive with a senior practitioner — no sales pitch.
Proposal Delivered in 48 Hours Fully scoped engagement plan with pricing and timeline.
Free Attack Surface Analysis Preliminary external exposure report at no cost.
Fully Confidential. NDA Available. No obligation. Your data is never shared.
200+ Engagements
40+ Services
98% Satisfaction
CERT-In Empanelled ISO 27001 OSCP · CEH · CISSP
1
You
2
Service
3
Details

About You

We'll use this to route you to the right expert.

What Do You Need?

Select all that apply — you can pick multiple.

Select at least one area to continue.

Final Details

Optional context to help us scope your engagement.

By submitting, you agree to our Privacy Policy. We'll never share your data.