Secure Code Review
A manual, exploit-focused read of your source code. We combine targeted static analysis with human review to find the issues that matter and trace them to real impact, not noise.
What is Secure Code Review?
Some flaws are only obvious in the source. We read your code with an attacker's eye — following untrusted input from entry point to sink — and combine targeted static analysis with human review to surface the exploitable issues tools rank as noise or miss entirely.
A pentest sees the outside; a code review sees the cause. Reading the source lets us find the flaw behind a symptom, spot the same dangerous pattern everywhere it's repeated, and catch issues that are hard to reach from the outside but trivial once you know where they are. We combine targeted static analysis to cover ground with human review to remove false positives and find the logic bugs tools can't reason about.
Code review also finds the issues that are only reachable under conditions a black-box test won't stumble into — a dangerous branch behind a feature flag, an admin-only code path, a race window. Because we read the logic rather than probe the surface, we can flag insecure design decisions early and give developers root-cause guidance, which fixes whole classes of bugs instead of individual symptoms.
Secure Code Review is a manual, exploit-driven assessment: real people attacking your target the way an adversary would, then proving each finding with a working proof of concept. It is not an automated scan with a logo on it — the point is to find and demonstrate the issues that actually put you at risk, and hand your team a clear plan to fix them.
Why it matters
Applications are the most-attacked surface on the internet, and a single exploitable flaw can expose your entire customer base. Scanners catch the obvious; the damaging bugs live in logic and authorization, where only manual testing reaches them.
A secure code review engagement replaces guesswork with evidence. Instead of hoping your controls hold, you get a ranked, reproducible picture of where they don’t — before someone hostile finds the same gaps.
Industries & use cases
Code review is most valuable for teams shipping fast, products handling sensitive data, and organisations that want to fix issue classes at the source rather than one symptom at a time — fintech, healthtech and platform companies especially.
What we test
Manual, exploit-driven coverage focused on real impact — not scanner noise.
- Injection and unsafe input handling
- Authentication and authorization logic
- Secrets and credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization and dependencies
- Cryptographic misuse
- Insecure design and dangerous defaults
Signs you should run a secure code review
If any of these apply, testing is overdue.
- You're shipping a new product or major refactor
- You handle sensitive data and want defence in depth
- You want to fix issue classes at the source
- Your team is growing and code quality varies
- You're integrating third-party or AI-generated code
Common vulnerabilities we find
The issues that show up again and again in secure code review — and the ones that actually get exploited.
Injection sinks
User input reaches SQL, OS commands, or template rendering without proper handling.
Broken authorization logic
Access checks are missing, inconsistent, or bypassable on specific code paths.
Hardcoded secrets
Credentials and keys committed to the repository, ready to be pulled from history.
Insecure dependencies
Vulnerable or abandoned libraries pulled in transitively, often with known exploits.
Dangerous defaults & misconfiguration
Debug modes, permissive CORS or disabled protections shipped as the default.
Race conditions / TOCTOU
Time-of-check to time-of-use flaws in critical operations like payments.
Weak cryptography usage
Hardcoded keys, weak algorithms, static IVs or misused primitives.
Improper error and exception handling
Leaked stack traces, secrets in logs, or fail-open logic.
Example attack chain
Real impact rarely comes from one bug — it comes from chaining several. A representative example:
Why choose webhook.press
Attacker mindset
We’re offensive security people who also build the free tools bug-bounty hunters use daily. We test the way real adversaries do — and prove it.
No scanner theatre
You get findings a human exploited and verified, ranked by real business risk — not an unfiltered tool dump padded to look thorough.
Fixed price, free retest
A clear quote after scoping, a report your team and auditors can use, and a free retest to confirm the fixes hold.
Our methodology
A structured, transparent process aligned to OWASP and PTES — with a named point of contact throughout.
Scoping & rules of engagement
We agree the exact targets, depth, timing and constraints for your secure code review, and set clear rules of engagement so testing is safe and predictable.
Reconnaissance & mapping
We enumerate the full attack surface — endpoints, roles, technologies and trust boundaries — and threat-model where an attacker would focus.
Manual testing & exploitation
We attack by hand, verifying and chaining weaknesses into real impact. Automated tooling supports coverage; humans find the logic and authorization bugs it can’t.
Analysis & risk rating
Each finding is validated, rated by real business risk rather than raw scanner severity, and de-duplicated so you get signal, not noise.
Reporting
You receive an executive summary for leadership and a technical section with reproducible PoCs, evidence and concrete, stack-specific remediation.
Free retest
After you remediate, we re-test the closed findings to confirm they are actually fixed — at no extra cost.
What you get
Reproducible PoCs
Every finding ships with a working proof and step-by-step reproduction your engineers can replay and verify.
Risk-ranked findings
Prioritised by real business impact, so you fix what matters first instead of drowning in low-severity noise.
Actionable remediation
Concrete, stack-specific fixes and guidance — not generic “apply best practice” filler.
Free retest
We re-check the closed findings after remediation and confirm they’re resolved.
The report is written for two audiences at once: an executive summary that a non-technical stakeholder can act on, and a detailed technical section — findings, evidence, CVSS and reproduction — that your developers and auditors can use directly.
Manual testing, not just a scan
Automated scanners are fast and useful for coverage, but they only find patterns they already know, and they flood you with false positives. They cannot understand your business logic, chain several small issues into a breach, or tell you which alert actually matters. Our secure code review is led by experienced testers who exploit findings by hand and rank them by the damage they’d really do — the difference between a 300-page tool dump and a short list of things worth fixing.
Standards & compliance
Our secure code review reports are written to support the frameworks your auditors and customers care about — including SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, and the EU’s NIS2 and DORA. Each engagement produces clear, independent evidence of testing with scope, methodology and findings documented the way assessors expect, so the same test both hardens your systems and helps satisfy your obligations.
Frameworks we follow
Recognised methodologies, adapted to your target — never a rigid checklist.
- OWASP — Web Security Testing Guide, ASVS and the API Security Top 10
- PTES — the Penetration Testing Execution Standard
- NIST SP 800-115 — technical guide to security testing
- OSSTMM — Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual
- MITRE ATT&CK — to frame real-world adversary techniques
FAQ
Which languages?
Most mainstream stacks — JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Go, Java, PHP, C#, Ruby and more.
Automated SAST or manual?
Both. We use tooling to cover ground, then humans to remove false positives and find logic bugs tools can't.
Which languages and stacks?
Most mainstream ecosystems — JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Go, Java, PHP, C#, Ruby — and their common frameworks.
Do you review the whole codebase or key areas?
We focus effort on authentication, authorization, input handling and sensitive flows, where exploitable bugs concentrate, and agree scope up front.
Do you review third-party and AI-generated code?
Yes — both are common sources of subtle, repeated flaws, and we treat them as part of your attack surface.
How do you prioritise a large codebase?
We focus on authentication, authorization, input handling and sensitive flows, where exploitable bugs concentrate.
How long does a secure code review take?
Most focused engagements run one to two weeks depending on scope; we agree the exact timeline during scoping.
Is a retest included?
Yes — after you remediate, we re-check the closed findings to confirm they’re fixed, at no extra cost.
How do you price it?
Per engagement, based on scope and depth — you get a fixed quote after a short scoping call. No cookie-cutter packages.
Why teams trust our secure code review
Aligned to recognised standards
Testing follows OWASP, PTES, NIST SP 800-115 and MITRE ATT&CK, and reports support SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, NIS2 and DORA.
Every engagement includes
Reproducible PoCs, risk-ranked findings, concrete remediation, a named point of contact, a free retest, and a summary letter of attestation.
Confidential by default
Work is covered by an NDA, scoped with clear rules of engagement, and data is handled with care throughout — including residency requirements.
Sample report available on request — see our reporting format and depth before you commit. Ask for a sample →
Get a quote for Secure Code Review
Tell us about the target — we’ll come back with scope and a fixed price. Manual, exploit-driven testing with reproducible proof and a free retest.