Human-Led Source Code Review

Tool-assisted static analysis paired with manual security review and validation. A Red Sentry reviewer owns the analysis and conclusions. Automated tool output does not automatically become a reported finding.

0

pentests delivered

0

vulnerabilities surfaced

0.0 on G2

and Capterra

Human-Led Source Code Review

Tool-assisted static analysis paired with manual security review and validation. A Red Sentry reviewer owns the analysis and conclusions. Automated tool output does not automatically become a reported finding.

0

pentests delivered

0

vulnerabilities surfaced

0.0 on G2

and Capterra

Human-Led Source Code Review

Tool-assisted static analysis paired with manual security review and validation. A Red Sentry reviewer owns the analysis and conclusions. Automated tool output does not automatically become a reported finding.

0

pentests delivered

0

vulnerabilities surfaced

0.0 on G2

and Capterra

What we Review

Review focuses on security-critical code paths, trust boundaries, and application logic that automated analysis alone may not fully understand.

Authentication and authorization enforcement

Authentication and authorization enforcement

Access control and privilege boundaries

Access control and privilege boundaries

Sensitive-data handling

Sensitive-data handling

Injection paths

Injection paths

Secrets and credential handling

Secrets and credential handling

Cryptographic implementation

Cryptographic implementation

Business logic

Business logic

File handling

File handling

External integrations and trust boundaries

External integrations and trust boundaries

How the Review Works

How the Review Works

Source code review at Red Sentry combines tool-assisted static analysis with manual security review. Static-analysis tooling helps provide breadth across the codebase and surface potential issues or review targets. A Red Sentry reviewer then examines the security-relevant code paths, application logic, and trust boundaries directly. Automated output does not automatically become a reported finding.

Source code review at Red Sentry combines tool-assisted static analysis with manual security review. Static-analysis tooling helps provide breadth across the codebase and surface potential issues or review targets. A Red Sentry reviewer then examines the security-relevant code paths, application logic, and trust boundaries directly. Automated output does not automatically become a reported finding.

01
Scope

Define the repositories, modules, languages/frameworks, exclusions, high-risk functionality, and review depth.

01
Scope

Define the repositories, modules, languages/frameworks, exclusions, high-risk functionality, and review depth.

02
Automated analysis

Static-analysis tooling helps identify potential vulnerabilities and security-relevant areas for deeper review.

02
Automated analysis

Static-analysis tooling helps identify potential vulnerabilities and security-relevant areas for deeper review.

03
Manual review

A security reviewer traces authentication, authorization, data flows, trust boundaries, business logic, and other high-risk code paths directly.

03
Manual review

A security reviewer traces authentication, authorization, data flows, trust boundaries, business logic, and other high-risk code paths directly.

04
Validation

Potential findings are manually reviewed and supported by code-level evidence before they are reported. Runtime validation is performed when included in scope or when the review is paired with penetration testing.

04
Validation

Potential findings are manually reviewed and supported by code-level evidence before they are reported. Runtime validation is performed when included in scope or when the review is paired with penetration testing.

05
Reporting

Validated findings include technical evidence, affected files/functions or code locations where applicable, business impact, severity, and remediation guidance.

05
Reporting

Validated findings include technical evidence, affected files/functions or code locations where applicable, business impact, severity, and remediation guidance.

Standalone or Combined

Source code review is a standalone Red Sentry service. It can also be paired with:

Hardware/IoT Security Testing

Threat Modeling

As a standalone assessment, source code review examines implementation details, control logic, and trust boundaries that runtime testing may not fully expose. When paired with penetration testing, code-level insight can help focus runtime validation on higher-risk paths and connect implementation weaknesses to demonstrated application behavior.

HOW WE WORK

Source code reviews are scoped based on codebase size, complexity, technologies, review depth, and testing objectives. Request a scoped review for an effort-based quote.

Number of repositories and product groups

Number of repositories and product groups

In-scope modules and exclusions

In-scope modules and exclusions

Languages and frameworks

Languages and frameworks

Shared libraries and authentication components

Shared libraries and authentication components

Documentation and build availability

Code quality, generated code, or obfuscation

Code quality, generated code, or obfuscation

Sensitive or regulated functionality

Sensitive or regulated functionality

CI/CD or build-configuration review

CI/CD or build-configuration review

Whether runtime validation is included

Whether runtime validation is included

Whether the review is comprehensive, targeted, differential, or time-boxed

Whether the review is comprehensive, targeted, differential, or time-boxed

Related repositories can be grouped together when they're part of the same product and share common logic. Follow-up reviews can focus on the modules that changed instead of redoing the full initial review.

When MCP, agents, or advanced tool-calling architecture are part of your environment, we match your engagement team to that architecture before the work is scoped.

AI-Assisted Code

This is a use case, not a separate service or a proprietary scanner. AI-assisted code is reviewed using the same human-led security methodology as traditionally developed code, with additional attention to patterns commonly introduced through generated or rapidly assembled code.

Red Sentry reviews traditionally developed and AI-assisted codebases using the same human-led security review process. For applications developed with significant AI assistance, reviewers pay particular attention to security-critical logic, generated configuration, dependency choices, secrets handling, authorization, validation, and assumptions introduced during rapid development.

Insecure defaults

Insecure defaults

Weak authorization

Weak authorization

Embedded secrets

Embedded secrets

Unsafe dependencies

Unsafe dependencies

Inconsistent validation

Inconsistent validation

Injection risks

Injection risks

Generated configuration problems

Generated configuration problems

Broken business logic

Broken business logic

Incorrect security assumptions

Incorrect security assumptions

Insecure defaults

Weak authorization

Embedded secrets

Unsafe dependencies

Inconsistent validation

Injection risks

Generated configuration problems

Broken business logic

Incorrect security assumptions

Languages We Review

Languages We Review

Commonly reviewed languages include

Commonly reviewed languages include

Python

JavaScript/TypeScript

Java

C#/.NET

C/C++

PHP

Go

Ruby

Swift

Kotlin

Objective-C

Rust

Additional languages, including Solidity, Scala, and Perl, may be supported depending on scope, technology, and reviewer availability.

What Clients Receive

One round of remediation testing for findings in the final report is included when requested within 90 days of report delivery, unless otherwise is scoped.

Executive summary

Assessment scope and methodology

Manually reviewed findings with severity and business impact

Technical evidence

File, function, and line references where applicable

Actionable remediation guidance

Coverage limitations and excluded areas

Letter of Attestation, where applicable

Findings review, when requested or included in scope

One round of remediation testing applies to findings in the final report, when requested within 90 days of final report delivery, unless the engagement is scoped differently.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Red Sentry access our code?

We agree on a secure access method during scoping. Depending on the engagement, this may include temporary repository access or a securely provided copy of the in-scope source code, along with relevant documentation and build information.

How long does a source code review take?

Timing depends on the size and complexity of the codebase, technologies involved, review objectives, and agreed scope. We confirm the expected effort and testing window before the engagement begins.

Can source code review be combined with penetration testing?

Yes. Source code review can be performed independently or paired with application, API, mobile, desktop, hardware, or other relevant security testing. When paired with runtime testing, code-level insight can help focus validation on higher-risk functionality and attack paths.

What happens after we fix the findings?

One round of remediation testing for findings in the final report is included when requested within 90 days of report delivery, unless otherwise scoped.

Request a Scoped Source Code Review

Tell us about your codebase, we'll scope the review around what actually matters.

Request a Scoped Source Code Review

Tell us about your codebase, we'll scope the review around what actually matters.