Deep Source Code Review for Web Applications

We offer Manual as well as Static source code reviews. These services provide a comprehensive examination of source code to identify potential security vulnerabilities and non-compliant coding practices. A manual source code review involves a trained security analyst manually reviewing the source code line by line to identify potential security issues, such as hardcoded credentials, SQL injection, and cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. The analyst also checks for compliance with industry standards, such as OWASP Top 10 and SANS Top 25.

A static source code review (Sast) involves the use of automated tools to analyze the source code for potential security issues. The tools can be configured to look for specific types of vulnerabilities and can analyze the code much faster than a human analyst. However, the results produced by the tools must be manually reviewed and verified by a security analyst to eliminate potential false positives which are common in Sast output.

Both manual and static source code reviews can provide valuable insights into the security posture of an application and can help identify vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers. The results of the review can be used to prioritize remediation efforts, improve the overall security of the application, and meet compliance requirements.

Manual source code review and static source code review both have their own advantages and disadvantages. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the application and the security objectives of the organization. Things to consider when choosing manual or static source code review include:

1) Human expertise: Manual source code reviews are performed by trained security analysts who understand the intricacies of code and can identify subtle security issues that might be missed by automated tools.

2) Contextual understanding: A manual source code review provides a deeper understanding of the code and its intended functionality, allowing the analyst to identify security issues that might not be apparent from the code alone.

3) False positive reduction: Automated tools can generate a large number of false positive results, which must be manually reviewed and filtered by a security analyst. This can result in a significant amount of wasted time and effort. In contrast, manual source code reviews are performed by a trained analyst who can make informed decisions about the significance of the results.

4) Customization: Manual source code reviews can be customized to meet the specific security needs and requirements of an organization.

However, manual source code reviews can be time-consuming and require a significant amount of expertise and resources. In contrast, static source code reviews are faster and more efficient, but may not provide the same level of detail and understanding of the code as a manual review.