Source Code Review

Find vulnerabilities in your code before they reach production.

The cheapest vulnerability to fix is the one caught before deployment. AMATAS source code review combines manual expert analysis with automated SAST to identify security defects in your codebase – at the point where fixing them costs the least.

Automated scanners catch known patterns. Manual reviewers catch everything else – logic flaws, insecure design decisions, authentication weaknesses, and vulnerabilities that only make sense when you understand what the code is supposed to do.

AMATAS source code review uses both: automated SAST tooling to achieve broad coverage at speed, and expert manual analysis to validate findings, eliminate false positives, and uncover the vulnerabilities that tools consistently miss. The result is a review that your developers can act on – not a 500-item scanner report full of noise.

Our Approach

Manual expertise meets automated coverage

Neither approach alone is sufficient. Combining them gives you the speed and breadth of automation with the depth and accuracy of manual expert analysis.

Manual expert review

Our security experts read your code the way an attacker would – understanding business logic, tracing data flows, identifying trust boundary violations, and finding vulnerabilities that automated tools cannot model. Manual review is essential for catching logic flaws, authentication weaknesses, and chained vulnerabilities across components.

Automated SAST analysis

Static Application Security Testing tools scan your entire codebase against known vulnerability patterns – providing broad coverage at speed and flagging issues across thousands of lines of code simultaneously. All SAST findings are validated by our experts to eliminate false positives before delivery, so your developers receive only accurate, actionable results.

What we find

Vulnerability categories identified in source code review

Injection vulnerabilities

SQL, command, LDAP, and template injection flaws – traced from user-controlled input to dangerous function calls.

Authentication & session flaws

Weak password handling, insecure token generation, missing session invalidation, and broken authentication flows.

Cryptographic weaknesses

Deprecated algorithms, hardcoded keys, weak random number generation, and insecure data encryption implementations.

Access control issues

Missing authorisation checks, privilege escalation paths, and insecure direct object references in application logic.

Hardcoded secrets

API keys, credentials, encryption keys, and tokens embedded directly in source code – a common finding with serious impact.

Insecure dependencies

Third-party libraries and components with known vulnerabilities – identified through component analysis alongside code review.

When to use it

The right moments for a source code review

Before a major release

Validate security before shipping new features or versions to production – when fixing is still cheap.

Before regulatory audit

Demonstrate due diligence to auditors with documented evidence of a security-reviewed codebase.

Before M&A or investment

Technical due diligence – understanding the security debt in a codebase before acquisition or funding.

After a security incident

Identify whether the same vulnerability class exists elsewhere in your codebase following a breach or finding.

Language coverage

We review code in all major languages and frameworks

Don’t see yours? Get in touch – if you’re building in it, we can review it.

FAQ

Source code review - common questions

How is source code review different from a penetration test?

A source code review analyses your application’s codebase directly – finding vulnerabilities at the point where they’re cheapest to fix, before the application is deployed. A penetration test assesses the running application from the outside, the way an attacker would. Both approaches find different things – source code review is better at logic flaws and design issues, while penetration testing is better at runtime behaviour and exploitability. For complete coverage, we recommend both.

Do you need our full codebase or just specific modules?

We can review the full codebase or scope the review to specific modules, services, or components based on your priorities and risk profile. A targeted review of your authentication module or payment processing component, for example, is a common and cost-effective starting point. We’ll agree the scope during the initial scoping call and can advise on what to prioritize.

How is the code shared securely for the review?

Code is transferred through encrypted, access-controlled channels agreed during scoping. Common methods include temporary read-only repository access, encrypted archive transfer, or a dedicated review environment. We follow strict data handling procedures and all code is treated as confidential – access is restricted to the reviewing team and deleted upon engagement closure.

Will SAST tools generate a lot of false positives?

Yes – unvalidated SAST output typically contains a significant proportion of false positives, which is why we never deliver raw scanner output. Every finding from our automated analysis is manually reviewed and validated by our experts before it appears in your report. What you receive is a confirmed, false-positive-free list of real vulnerabilities your team can act on immediately.

Can source code review be integrated into our CI/CD pipeline?

Yes – we can advise on integrating SAST tooling into your CI/CD pipeline as part of the engagement, enabling automated security checks on every commit or pull request. We help configure the tooling, define severity thresholds that block deployment, and establish a workflow that brings security into your development process without slowing it down.

Ready to review your codebase?

Talk to our team -we’ll scope the right review for your language stack, release timeline, and compliance needs.

Often combined with source code review

Web & API Penetration Testing

Validate exploitability of findings from the source code review against the running application.

Mobile App Penetration Testing

Combine static code analysis with dynamic runtime testing for full mobile application coverage.

AI/LLM Security Assessment

Security review of AI model integration code – prompt handling, output sanitisation, and API security.