What Is Secure Code Review?
Key takeaways
- A secure code review is against a written standard, such as the OWASP ASVS or the MASVS for mobile, so a finding cites a control instead of an opinion.
- The most valuable check is authorisation, because a missing ownership check on one endpoint lets a user read another user's record, and no scanner reliably finds it.
- SAST in the pipeline catches the mechanical defects cheaply and continuously, while a human reviewer concentrates on business logic and design, so the two are complementary.
- Every pull request needs a named security reviewer for the changes that matter, and the reviewer must be able to block the merge, or the review is theatre.
- Record the review outcome on the pull request, because when a CERT-In incident is investigated, the trail of decisions around a change is what explains how the defect reached production.
As of 24 October 2026: the service descriptions, prices and turnaround figures on this page are current.
What makes a code review security-focused rather than routine?
Three things distinguish it. A written standard, so the reviewer checks against the OWASP ASVS or the MASVS rather than personal taste, and the finding can cite a control number. A defined scope, so the review covers what a change can affect, including the data it touches, the identity it trusts and the dependencies it adds. And a severity model, so a missing authorisation check on a customer record is fixed before the merge while a lowercase string check is not. Add the habits that make it stick: a checklist the reviewer follows, short training on the top ten findings, and a rule that a change touching auth, crypto, payment or personal data needs a second reviewer.
Which vulnerabilities should a reviewer look for first?
Start with authorisation, then the rest. Authorisation is first because a missing check lets one user act on another's data or perform an admin action, and because scanners rarely find it. Then input handling: every place a request value reaches a query, a file path, a template, a command or a redirect. Then output handling, whether user data is escaped for the context it lands in. Then identity and session handling: token expiry, signature verification, cookie flags and logout invalidation. Then cryptography and secrets: no hardcoded keys, no weak randomness for tokens. Then the dependencies added by the change, then error handling, because a stack trace in a response is both an information leak and a map of the internals.
How do you fit secure review into a team that ships every week?
Make it a gate, not a meeting. Put SAST and dependency scanning in the pipeline so the mechanical checks run on every pull request automatically, and fail the build on the findings that matter, with a small allow-list of accepted exceptions that have an owner and an expiry date. Then require a human security review only for changes that touch authentication, authorisation, cryptography, payments, personal data, file upload and new public endpoints. Give the reviewers a one-page checklist and a clear escalation route to a security engineer, with a service level for that escalation, otherwise the pull request just sits. Track the median time from finding to fix, and the count of findings that reached production.
| Review area | What the reviewer looks for | Example finding |
|---|---|---|
| Authorisation | Ownership and role checks on every new endpoint | User can read another user's record |
| Input handling | Values reaching queries, paths, templates, commands | SQL built by string concatenation |
| Output handling | Context-appropriate encoding of user and stored data | Unescaped value rendered in a template |
| Identity and session | Token expiry, signature checks, cookie flags, logout | Accepting an expired or unsigned token |
| Cryptography and secrets | Standard algorithms, no hardcoded keys, no weak randomness | API key committed to the repository |
| Dependencies | New libraries checked against known vulnerabilities | Added package with a published advisory |
| Error handling | No stack traces or internal paths in responses | Raw exception returned to the client |
What are the frequently asked questions?
Get a straight answer on this
Send us one repository and one pull request, and we will return a review checklist and a security audit of your current code with fixed pricing.
Send us the details See pricing