Do you need the full source code?

Yes, secure code review is a white-box assessment. We need repository access.

What languages do you support?

Java, .NET, Python, Node.js, Go, PHP, Ruby, with language-specific expertise for each.

How is this different from running a SAST tool?

SAST tools find pattern matches. We find logic errors, architectural weaknesses, and business-specific vulnerabilities that require understanding your application's intent.

How long does a code review take?

Depends on codebase size and complexity. A small application: around 5 days. A large enterprise codebase: 10-15 days.

Can you integrate findings into our CI/CD pipeline?

Yes, we provide SAST configuration recommendations and can help set up automated checks.

Secure Code Review

Automated scanners find syntax-level bugs. A security researcher finds the architectural flaws, logic errors, and trust boundary violations that lead to real compromise. We combine static analysis with manual review by a consultant who builds production security tools.

Why This Matters

SAST tools generate hundreds of findings, most false positives, and none of them understand your architecture. Logic errors, trust boundary violations, authentication design flaws: these get missed because the tools analyze code, not intent. Manual review by a security engineer who writes production code catches what automated tooling cannot.

What We Test

Authentication and authorization logic

Input validation and output encoding

Cryptographic implementation and key management

Session management and token handling

Error handling, logging, and information disclosure

Data protection and privacy controls (PII handling, encryption at rest)

Third-party dependency analysis (SCA, known vulnerable components)

Architecture and trust boundary analysis

Concurrency and race condition susceptibility

API contract validation

How We Work

Four-phase approach: 1) Architecture review to understand the codebase structure, trust boundaries, data flows. 2) Software composition analysis covering third-party dependencies and known vulnerabilities. 3) Static analysis with automated SAST tooling to identify candidate findings. 4) Manual code review focused on critical paths: auth, payments, data handling, crypto. We triage SAST output to eliminate false positives and focus manual effort where it matters. Findings are ranked by exploitability, not just theoretical severity. Languages supported: Java, .NET (C#), Python, Node.js/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Ruby, with language-specific analysis using idiomatic patterns and known pitfalls for each.

What You Get

Findings with exact code locations and exploitation scenarios

Remediation guidance with secure code examples

Architecture-level recommendations (not just line-by-line fixes)

SAST configuration recommendations for your CI/CD pipeline

Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for third-party dependencies

Retesting of remediated findings

Compliance & Framework Support

PCI DSS (6.2.3)SOC 2 (CC4.1)ISO 27001DORAGDPR (privacy by design)

Why SharpSec

We write security software

Our reviewer builds production tools (Portspoof Pro, Modlishka, NightWatchDog). Code review by someone who writes code professionally yields deeper findings than a pentester reading source.

Manual analysis with architectural context

SAST tools are inputs, not outputs. Every finding is manually validated against your architecture, trust boundaries, and data flows. We identify design-level weaknesses, not just line-level bugs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Services

Web Application Penetration Testing

Manual testing of web apps and APIs beyond automated scanners. OWASP ASVS aligned.

Security Software Development

Custom offensive tooling, detection platforms, and security automation.

Mobile Penetration Testing

Binary reverse engineering and runtime analysis across iOS and Android. OWASP MASVS aligned.

Discuss Your Project

Tell us about your security requirements and we'll scope the right engagement.