Secure Code Review
Some risks only become apparent through a detailed review of the code. Canary Trap evaluates the application’s end-to-end functionality, focusing on the code paths that matter most based on their potential business impact.
What we review, and validate.
We review the code paths, trust boundaries, and implementation patterns that determine whether security controls hold in practice.
Outcome of this engagement
Secure Code Review helps your team identify design and implementation flaws that scanners often miss and penetration tests may not have time to fully analyze.
Critical paths
- Authentication, authorization, and session handling
- Multi-tenant data isolation and access control
- Cryptography, key management, and secret handling
Data & integrations
- Input handling, injection risk, and serialization
- Trust boundaries with third-party APIs, SDKs, and services
- AI, LLM, or high-risk integration logic, where in scope
Code findings your engineering team can act on.
A secure code review is only valuable if the findings help developers fix the right problems without guesswork.
Canary Trap reports are written to support engineering remediation, security prioritization, leadership visibility, and compliance conversations.
Secure code should be reviewed where risk actually lives.
Automated tools are useful, but they are not judgment. They can flag potential issues, often generating false positives that require expert vetting. They also cannot always determine whether a design decision, trust boundary, or implementation pattern creates genuinely exploitable risk.
This engagement gives your team a defensible view of the application’s critical code paths, including what was reviewed, what was validated, what creates risk, and what should happen next.
A transparent process from scope to retesting.
Every Secure Code Review is scoped to your repositories, languages, frameworks, features, business logic, and review objectives.
We confirm code paths, application context, access model, business-critical features, rules of engagement, timing, contacts, and communication process.
Our testers review the in-scope code for attacker-relevant flaws across authentication, authorization, and data handling, integrations.
We document findings with evidence, severity, business context, affected code references, and practical remediation guidance.
Your team addresses the findings with clear direction from the report and findings review.
We review remediated findings within the defined window to validate that the risk has been addressed.
Code review led by people who understand attack paths.
Secure Code Review is often treated like a static analysis cleanup exercise. That is useful, but incomplete.
Canary Trap brings senior offensive security expertise, structured methodology, and practical reporting to help your team understand which code-level issues create realistic security risk.
Senior-led manual review
Testing is led by experienced offensive security professionals, not handed off to junior teams.
Attacker-aligned analysis
We focus on the code paths attackers are most likely to target, including authentication, authorization, business logic, sensitive data handling, and integrations.
Context-aware validation
We evaluate findings within the surrounding code, architecture, and intended application design—not simply whether a tool identifies a pattern.
Practical developer guidance
Findings include affected code references, remediation direction, and enough context for engineering teams to act efficiently.
Project management
Every engagement includes clear communication, defined expectations, and project management throughout the testing lifecycle.
Remediation validation
Validation helps confirm that remediated findings have actually been addressed, not just marked complete.
Trust signals
Canary Trap is SOC 2 Type II certified, maintains an NPS above 95, and specializes in offensive security testing.
Code risk rarely stays in the code.
Secure code issues often connect to applications, APIs, cloud services, AI features, and release pipelines. These are common pairings with Secure Code Review.
Secure code review questions, answered plainly.
Secure code review is a manual, static examination of source code—performed without executing the software—to identify security flaws in its design and implementation that could create exploitable risk.
Canary Trap reviews critical code paths such as authentication, authorization, access control, data handling, cryptography, and integrations.
Static application security testing identifies patterns and potential issues. Secure Code Review applies human analysis to determine whether code-level issues are attacker-relevant, exploitable, or connected to broader business logic and design flaws.
SAST is useful input. It is not the full answer.
Canary Trap reviews web, mobile, API, and backend application stacks written in all major programming languages, as well as several less common and specialized languages.
No. Canary Trap will access to the code within the agreed scope, provided through read-only repository access or as a ZIP file. Any additional documentation or context required to understand the relevant code paths will also be gathered.
Yes. Depending on the engagement objectives, the review can focus on selected features, code paths, or components that present greater business or security risk.
Yes. Many clients pair Secure Code Review with Application Penetration Testing, API Penetration Testing, or AI & LLM Penetration Testing.
This can help validate whether code-level findings are exploitable in the running application and give engineering teams clearer remediation direction.
No. A Secure Code Review focuses on security flaws within the source code in scope, including whether dependencies are used securely. It does not assess broader software supply chain risks.
Yes, where in scope. Secure Code Review can include AI or LLM-related code paths such as prompt handling, retrieval logic, agent workflows, tool calls, authorization checks, and integration boundaries.
Most Secure Code Review engagements run four weeks, depending on the number of repositories, code paths, languages, frameworks, and review objectives.
Cost depends on scope, including the number of repositories, applications, critical features, languages, frameworks, integrations, and review depth required.
Canary Trap prices from scope, not from a generic rate card.
Yes. Secure Code Review can support common compliance and customer assurance requirements. Canary Trap reports provide technical remediation detail while also supporting audit, leadership, and customer conversations.
Retesting is available as an optional add-on because remediation changes or newly introduced features can require a level of effort similar to the initial review. For Secure Code Review, Canary Trap can validate remediated findings within the defined engagement window.
Scoping is straightforward. We typically need the approximate number of lines of code and the primary languages used in the application.
If the application includes AI or LLM integrations, we also need to understand how those components are implemented and used. In these cases, dynamic testing is strongly encouraged to assess risks that may not be visible through code review alone.
A scoping call is used to confirm the right approach before work begins.
Canary Trap reviews the findings with your team, explains the most important risks, provides remediation guidance, and validates remediated findings within the defined window where applicable.
Ready to scope a secure code Review?
A short scoping call is enough to align, review objectives, and the right next step.
Working against a launch, audit, renewal, or release deadline? Tell us the date and we’ll work backwards from it.
