Secure Code Review (SCR) Services

Flow chart of the Secure Code Review (SCR) engagement, 6 phases in order, each one selectable. Phase 1, Threat Modelling and Critical-Path Selection. We map your application, its trust boundaries and its sensitive flows, then agree which authentication, authorization, payment and data-handling paths we review first. Activities: Walk the architecture and trust boundaries with your engineers; Map authentication and authorization paths; Identify where payment and personal data move; Agree the review scope and repository access. Hands over Critical-Path Review Plan. Phase 2, Automated SAST Triage. We run and tune SAST across the codebase, then triage the output to remove noise and false positives so manual effort goes where it counts. Activities: Tune SAST rules to your languages and frameworks; Triage the SAST backlog and remove false positives; Cluster repeated patterns into single root causes; Map surviving alerts to CWE categories. Hands over Triaged SAST Backlog. Phase 3, Manual Code Review. Our engineers read the selected paths line by line, following data and control flow to find flaws that scanners miss in logic, access control and trust decisions. Activities: Read payment and data-export flows line by line; Trace user input from entry point to sink; Check every access decision against the intended role model; Review session, token and secret handling; Test business logic assumptions against OWASP ASVS. Hands over Findings Report with File and Line References. Phase 4, Exploitability Confirmation. We confirm each finding is reachable and abusable, rank it by real impact, and drop anything that cannot actually be exploited. Activities: Confirm exploitability in a local build; Write a minimal proof of concept for each confirmed issue; Discard findings that no reachable path can trigger; Rank what remains by business impact. Hands over Confirmed and Ranked Finding Set. Phase 5, Fix Guidance and Pairing. We give concrete, code-level remediation for every confirmed issue and pair with your developers so the fixes are correct the first time. Activities: Write the fix as a code diff, not a description; Pair with engineers on the fix; Suggest a regression test for each issue; Walk the team through the recurring patterns. Hands over Fix Guidance at Pull-Request Quality. Phase 6, Re-Review. Once fixes land, we re-review the changed code to verify the issue is closed and no new weakness was introduced. Activities: Read the fix commits against the original findings; Retest each proof of concept on the patched build; Check the fix did not open a new weakness nearby; Close out the report with verified status per finding. Hands over Re-Review Closure Report. Each phase begins from the artefact the phase before it produced.