Secure code review that settles the findings you already have.
Findings produced by SAST, scanners and AI are verified against the real code: what is reachable, what is exploitable and which remediation is worth implementing.
- Input
- Findings and code
- Scanner or AI output assessed against the real codebase.
- Typical review
- Around 10 days
- Effort depends on finding volume, complexity and access.
- Decision
- One status per finding
- Confirmed, false positive, unreachable or requiring more work.
Which findings can actually be exploited?
Automated findings need verification.
SAST, scanners and AI agents produce candidates, and the better ones now reproduce a flow to back them up. What they cannot settle is whether the behaviour is a defect or a deliberate decision, and what it is actually worth in your application.
That call is made against the code, so your developers do not have to triage every alert from scratch.
Input, process and output
A clear status for every finding.
The scanner or AI setup is also reviewed when repeated false positives suggest that its rules or context need adjustment.
As an initial planning assumption, allow around ten working days. After scoping, the proposal confirms the repositories and findings in scope, required access, exclusions, estimated effort and delivery date.
- Scope the review
Scoping covers the source and volume of findings, repositories, languages, frameworks, access needs and whether the application can be run.
- Check each finding
Each finding is checked for reachability, application context, impact and exploitation conditions.
- Record the decision
Each finding is classified as confirmed, false positive, not reachable or requiring further work, with evidence, exploitation conditions and practical remediation documented.
Other services
Before the findings, and after the fix.
Web & API penetration testing
In-depth testing of web applications, APIs and the supporting cloud paths that matter to the product.
Ongoing product security support
Review a sensitive change, work through a remediation or verify a fix without repeating a full pentest.
When a verified fix requires production code, remediation engineering is available as a scoped add-on.
Common questions
What teams usually ask before a review.
What do you need to scope a secure code review?
Scoping needs the source and approximate volume of findings, the relevant repositories, languages and frameworks, required access, whether the application can be run and your target date.
How is the delivery date estimated?
As an initial planning assumption, allow around ten working days. The estimated effort and delivery date are confirmed after reviewing the findings, codebase, access requirements and application context. The volume and complexity of findings can change the work materially.
What decision does each finding receive?
Each finding is classified as confirmed, false positive, not reachable or requiring further work, based on the real code and application context.
What does the review deliver?
You receive a prioritised list with a clear decision, evidence, exploitation conditions and practical remediation for each finding, plus observations on the scanner or AI setup where relevant.
Can you validate SAST, scanner and AI-generated findings?
Yes. Automated output is treated as a signal rather than a decision, then reachability, application context, impact and exploitation conditions are verified manually.
Talk to me about the findings.
Tell me their source, approximate volume, stack and deadline.
Prefer to write directly? [email protected]