Authentication and sessions
Login flows, session handling, password reset, MFA assumptions, token storage and account recovery paths.
Source code audit
Find vulnerabilities at their source: in the code, architecture and implementation choices.
Why review the code?
Some vulnerabilities are difficult to detect from the outside. A source code audit makes it possible to understand why a weakness exists, where it spreads and how to correct it properly.
The review is not a cosmetic code-quality exercise. It focuses on exploitable risks, dangerous assumptions, sensitive flows and development practices that can create security debt.
It is especially useful before a critical release, after a major refactor, before exposing a new application, or when a team wants to raise its secure development maturity.
What is reviewed
Authorization and roles
Horizontal and vertical privilege boundaries, business permissions and hidden access paths.
Sensitive data
Secrets, personal data, logs, exports, uploads, encryption and data exposure through APIs or errors.
Dependencies and framework use
Risky patterns, outdated libraries, insecure defaults and misuse of security mechanisms.
Manual review supported by tooling
Architecture reading
Understand the application structure, trust boundaries, critical modules and integration points before listing findings.
Targeted code paths
Prioritize sensitive flows instead of mechanically scanning every line with the same depth.
Exploitability mindset
Evaluate whether a weakness can realistically be abused and how it affects the business context.
References and approach
- OWASP ASVS to structure application security requirements
- OWASP Cheat Sheet Series for remediation guidance
- Secure development best practices and threat modeling principles
- Manual review assisted by static-analysis tools when they add value
Outcome
Root causes
The audit explains where vulnerabilities come from and which design or implementation choices created them.
Prioritized fixes
Teams can focus effort on issues that reduce real exposure rather than chasing low-value noise.
Developer-friendly report
Findings include explanations that are understandable by the people who need to fix them.
Security habits
Recurring patterns can be turned into review points, checklists and team reflexes.
After the audit
Fix planning
Findings are translated into a remediation sequence that separates urgent exploitable issues, structural corrections and lower-risk improvements that can be scheduled later.
Developer debrief
The restitution can focus on code examples, vulnerable patterns and secure alternatives so the team understands how to avoid reproducing the same weakness.
Retest of critical fixes
When major issues are corrected, a focused retest verifies that the vulnerable path is closed and that the fix did not introduce an obvious regression.
Secure review habits
Recurring patterns can become pull-request checkpoints, lightweight checklists or training topics aligned with the technologies actually used by the team.
Complementary testing
If the review reveals risky exposed flows, a web penetration test can validate the behavior from the attacker perspective and confirm real exploitability.
Management reading
The technical findings are summarized in a way that helps non-developers understand business impact, priorities and the expected remediation effort.