Secure Code Review: what a source code security assessment looks for

Secure Code Review examines how code implements protection and business rules. A feature may work for an ordinary user while incorrectly allowing access to someone else’s document. Manual analysis complements automation by tracing data and checking behaviour against system intent.

Start with critical functions and trust boundaries

Describe architecture, roles, valuable data and external integrations. Identify code deciding access, payment, privilege changes or file uploads. Context matters: the same line can be safe in one location and unsafe in another.

Agree the source version and review scope. Reviewing a change and assessing an entire codebase have different depth. Record unavailable dependencies or configuration as limitations rather than assuming correctness.

Check server-side decisions

A hidden button does not block a direct request. For example, a user may change a document identifier in the URL. The server must verify access to that object rather than merely sign-in status. Review relevant paths, including exports and APIs.

Validate inputs by expected type and purpose. Database queries, HTML output and file handling need context-specific protections. One general string filter does not replace correct handling for each context.

Compare automated signals with behaviour

Static analysis identifies suspicious patterns; dependency checks identify known component issues. Validate findings to distinguish reachable flaws from false positives. Business logic, such as operation reuse, often requires manual investigation.

Separately review secrets, logs and errors. Useful diagnostics must not expose passwords, keys or unnecessary personal information. Reports retain sufficient evidence without becoming a broadly accessible copy of the sensitive environment.

Hand over fixes with root-cause validation

For each finding, identify location, conditions, impact and the remediation principle. Avoid cosmetic symptom hiding. If a shared method lacks permission checks, assess all its callers rather than only the demonstrated route.

After changes, repeat the scenario and test legitimate roles. Hand over remaining limitations and guidance for future changes. Review does not guarantee every flaw is absent; it supplies specific validated findings for the scoped source.

Sources and further reading

• OWASP: Secure Code Review methodology
• OWASP: static analysis capabilities
• OWASP: resource-level authorisation

• Related subservice: Secure Code Review
• Explore this service area