Skip to content
Invadel

Application

Secure Code
Review Services

Starts at $4,800, fixed scope, free retest. See all pricing →

Get a fixed quote

Reply in one business day

Full scoping questionnaire 
Senior certified testers, manual-first185+ years combined experienceOnboarding within 24 hoursFree retest includedOur methodology

When you need it

When you need secure code review

The situations that bring teams to this engagement, and where it fits alongside the rest of your program.

  • A release is approaching and the last line of defense is the pull-request review by the same team that wrote the code.
  • You are buying or investing in a company and need an independent view of the codebase before the deal closes, as part of cybersecurity due diligence.
  • Your SOC 2 change-management controls or PCI DSS Requirement 6.2 expect security review of custom code before it ships.
  • A penetration test found business-logic flaws and you want the rest of the code checked for the same patterns.
  • The codebase is growing with AI-generated code and nobody is sure what it does. Our piece on the security risks of vibe coding explains why that matters.

Definition

What is secure source code review?

Secure code review, also called source code review, is a security-focused read of your application’s source, looking for the flaws an attacker would exploit before the code ships. AI-assisted static analysis maps the codebase and flags candidates; a senior reviewer confirms each one and looks for the authorization, cryptography, and business-logic flaws that scanners miss, tracing every finding from input to sink.

One fixed price covers the review, from $4,800 with a free re-review once fixes merge. See the secure code review price tiers.

What we look for

Code vulnerabilities we hunt for

Finding a vulnerability in source is cheaper than finding it in production. We trace injection, authentication, and logic flaws to the exact lines of code that cause them.

Injection & Input Handling

Unsafe use of untrusted input traced directly to the vulnerable code.

We test for

  • SQL and command injection
  • Unsafe deserialization
  • Path traversal
  • Input validation gaps

Authentication & Authorization

Access-control and identity logic flaws visible at the source.

We test for

  • Broken access-control checks
  • Session and token handling
  • Privilege and role logic
  • Insecure direct references

Cryptography & Secrets

Weak cryptography and mishandled secrets baked into the codebase.

We test for

  • Weak or custom algorithms
  • Hardcoded secrets and keys
  • Insecure randomness
  • Improper key handling

Dependencies & Configuration

Risk introduced by third-party code and insecure defaults.

We test for

  • Vulnerable dependencies
  • Supply-chain risk
  • Insecure default configuration
  • Debug and verbose settings

Approach

SAST scanning vs manual secure code review, and why we do both

Static analysis is fast and tireless. It is also wrong a lot of the time, and blind to anything that requires understanding what the code is for. The two approaches cover each other’s gaps. For where dynamic and interactive testing fit, see SAST vs DAST vs IAST compared.

AI-assisted SAST triage

What it finds
Known dangerous patterns at scale: injection sinks, unsafe deserialization, hardcoded secrets, vulnerable dependencies, weak cryptography.
What it misses
Anything that depends on intent. A scanner cannot know which user should own which record or which step must happen before payment.
How we use it
Tuned rulesets and data-flow tracing across the repository to surface candidates and map the codebase quickly.

Manual secure code review

What it finds
Logic and design flaws: broken authorization, race conditions, trust boundaries crossed, workflows that can be abused, and the false positives the scanner raised.
What it misses
Nothing systematically, but it is slow, so it is aimed where the triage and the threat model say risk is highest.
How we use it
A reviewer confirms or discards every candidate, then hunts the flaws no tool reasons about. Nothing reaches the report unverified.

Coverage

Languages and frameworks we review

We review the major web, mobile, and backend stacks. Share yours during scoping and we confirm coverage before quoting. Solidity and other on-chain code is reviewed as a separate smart contract audit.

JavaScript and TypeScript

  • React, Next.js, Vue, and Angular frontends
  • Node.js with Express, NestJS, and Fastify
  • Serverless handlers and edge functions

Python

  • Django and Flask
  • FastAPI services
  • Data pipelines and LLM application code

Java, Kotlin, and C#

  • Spring and Spring Boot
  • Jakarta EE and legacy servlets
  • ASP.NET Core and .NET services

Go, PHP, and Ruby

  • Go services and CLIs
  • Laravel, Symfony, and WordPress plugins
  • Ruby on Rails

Mobile and infrastructure

  • Swift and Kotlin mobile apps
  • Terraform, CloudFormation, and Kubernetes manifests
  • CI/CD pipeline definitions, runner permissions, and secrets

Deliverables

How findings are delivered

  • Every finding traced to file and line, with the data flow from source to sink where it applies.
  • Severity and exploitability context: what an attacker would need, and what they would get.
  • Findings mapped to CWE and the OWASP ASVS control they violate, so they slot into your existing security requirements.
  • Secure coding recommendations written for the developers who own the code, with example fixes where useful.
  • A developer walkthrough call after delivery, and a free re-review once the fixes are merged.

Economics

Finding it in code costs less than finding it in production

A flaw caught in review is a ticket. The same flaw caught in production is an incident, and IBM’s 2025 study puts the average cost of a US data breach at $10.22 million.

Why shifting left pays for itself

The gap between a ticket and an incident is the return on shifting security left: the earlier a flaw is found, the less it costs to fix.

The most complete assurance

A code review paired with a web application penetration test covers the application from both sides: what the code says, and what an attacker can make it do. Our guide to web application security testing shows where each method fits.

The math, worked through

Our guide on the cost savings of proactive security puts numbers on both sides of that gap.

Methodology

Secure code review methodology

Full methodology →

Every engagement follows the Penetration Testing Execution Standard and the relevant OWASP guides.

These are the phases your secure code review runs through.

  1. 01

    Scope & access

    Repositories, branches, and the threat model agreed, with read access set up for the review.

  2. 02

    AI-assisted SAST triage

    Tuned rulesets and data-flow tracing surface candidates and map the codebase quickly.

  3. 03

    Manual review

    Reviewers confirm or discard every candidate, then hunt the logic flaws no tool reasons about.

  4. 04

    Exploitability validation

    Each finding traced from source to sink and rated by what an attacker could reach.

  5. 05

    Report & re-review

    Findings by file and line with example fixes, a developer walkthrough, and a free re-review once fixes merge.

How it works

How your engagement runs

From scope through the final retest, your team stays in the loop at every step, with findings tracked live in our platform.

  1. 01

    Scope & kickoff

    Targets, roles, and rules of engagement defined in writing, with a fixed scope and timeline.

  2. 02

    Testing goes live

    Findings post to your live platform dashboard the moment our testers confirm them.

  3. 03

    Track remediation

    Follow every finding from open to fixed, with severity, evidence, and status in one place.

  4. 04

    Report & retest

    Executive and technical reports land, then request a free retest in one click.

Compliance

Compliance frameworks this test satisfies

Findings are mapped to the requirement or control they evidence, so the same report serves your auditor, your customers, and your engineers.

PCI DSSRequirement 6.2.3 review of bespoke and custom software before release, and 6.2.4 secure coding evidence.SOC 2CC8.1 change management evidence that code is reviewed for security before it reaches production.ISO 27001Annex A 8.25 secure development life cycle, A 8.28 secure coding, and A 8.29 security testing in development.NYDFS 23 NYCRR 500The secure development practices §500.8 requires for in-house developed applications.HIPAASafeguard evidence for the application code that handles ePHI.
Common inStartupsAll industries

Proof

Proof in the field

Every engagement is confidential, so the work below is anonymized to sector and engagement type.

All case studies →

Free

Retest on every penetration test

185+

Years combined experience

14

Senior in-house specialists

24h

Onboarding after signing

HR & Payroll SaaS

Web Application Penetration Test

High risk

Critical: a file-inclusion flaw that let an attacker read sensitive files from the server through the application itself. High: stored cross-site scripting capable of session theft, insecure direct object references, and an authorization bypass that let an administrator create or delete organization owners.

Outcome. Delivered a remediation plan sequenced by real business impact, critical and high findings first, with a complimentary retest to verify every fix.

28

Findings

1

Critical

5

High

Read the case study

Fintech · Payments

Web Application Penetration Test

High risk

Critical: a remote code execution flaw in the application’s web framework that could have given an attacker full control of the server. We escalated it to the development team while the test was still running.

Outcome. The critical RCE was reported and remediated during the engagement via an emergency framework upgrade, which also closed the server-side request forgery, and the remaining findings were retested to confirmation.

1

Critical (RCE)

Mid-test

Critical remediated

2

High

Read the case study
LatentPerygeeCity National BankAubaDesteiaDTCC
Request a reference 

Resources

Field notes from the offensive side

All articles →

SAST vs DAST vs IAST: What Each Finds and Misses

SAST vs DAST vs IAST vs RASP compared: when each runs, what it finds, what it misses, and where manual code review and penetration testing fill the gaps.

Building a Secure Code Review Program

Secure code review finds flaws automated scanning misses, at the source. Here is how to build a program that scales without slowing your engineers down.

OWASP ASVS: The Application Security Verification Standard

What the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) is, how its three levels work, how it differs from the Top 10, and how to use it in a pentest.

Want to see a report first?

Read a sample report for a fictional client, or request a redacted one from a real engagement. Our guide explains what a penetration testing report should contain.

See the sample report

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What teams most often ask before scoping secure code review.

Still have questions? 
01How is a source code review different from a penetration test?

A penetration test attacks the running application from the outside. A source code review examines the code itself, catching insecure patterns, logic flaws, and vulnerabilities at their root, including issues that are hard to reach from the outside. The two are complementary.

02What does the AI assistance actually do?

The AI-assisted layer accelerates coverage: it triages the codebase, surfaces candidate issues, and traces data flow across large repositories faster than a manual pass alone. It never decides the outcome. A human reviewer confirms or discards every candidate, rules out false positives, and hunts the logic and design flaws that no tool reasons about, so what reaches your report is verified by a person.

03What languages do you review?

We review the major web, mobile, and backend languages and frameworks, including JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Go, Java, C#, PHP, Ruby, Swift, and Kotlin. Share your stack during scoping and we will confirm coverage. Findings are mapped to CWE and the OWASP ASVS.

04How is a source code review scoped?

Scope is driven by repository size, language mix, and how many services or modules need review. Share your repository structure during scoping and we confirm coverage and a fixed price before work begins.

05How much does a source code review cost?

Source code reviews start at $4,800, fixed before work begins, with a free re-review of remediated code included. Larger or multi-repo codebases are quoted in writing from your scope details, no sales call required. Starting prices for every service are on our pricing page.

06Can you review a single feature, module, or pull request?

Yes. Focused reviews of a new payment flow, an authentication rewrite, or a high-risk pull request are common and are scoped by the size of the change rather than the whole repository. Teams that want this on a recurring basis, for example a review of every release, fold it into a testing program.

07Do you need access to our repository, or can we share a snapshot?

Either works. Read-only access to a branch or tag is fastest and lets us trace history and configuration. Where policy prevents that, a snapshot archive or a dedicated mirror is fine. Code is handled under NDA, stored encrypted for the duration of the engagement and the re-review, and securely destroyed afterward.

08Secure code review services or source code review services: is there a difference?

No. Both phrases describe the same engagement: a security-focused review of your source code by people who attack applications for a living. Some buyers say source code review when they mean a full-repository audit and secure code review when they mean a review of a specific feature or release. We scope either way. The method is the same five steps: agree scope and access, run AI-assisted static analysis to map the codebase, review by hand, validate exploitability, and deliver findings by file and line with a free re-review once fixes merge.

09What does a source code review report include?

Every finding is traced to the file and line that causes it, with the data flow from source to sink where it applies, a severity and exploitability rating, and a secure-coding fix written for the developers who own the code. Findings are mapped to CWE and the OWASP ASVS control they violate. The report opens with an executive summary and a scope statement, and after your team merges the fixes we re-review at no extra cost and reissue it showing the findings closed.

Ready to test your defenses?

Talk to our team about scoping secure code review.

Prefer the full scoping questionnaire? 
RelatedWeb App API Mobile Third-Party Pentest

Get a Fixed-Scope Quote

Tell us what you need tested. We reply within one business day.