Source Code Review
Scanners find patterns. Humans find chains. We pair both, then explain what to fix.
A pile of scanner output isn't a code review
Run a static analyser on its own and you get hundreds of lines to sift through, most of them irrelevant. CyberMindX puts an engineer on top of that baseline, spending the actual review time on the categories a tool can't reason about well — how authentication and authorization are wired together, whether the cryptography is used correctly, where deserialization could turn into something worse, and the framework-specific mistakes that don't match any generic rule.
Every issue we flag comes with a fix written for your codebase, not a generic rule reference. And where it's useful, we go a step further and write up the patterns we noticed — both the good ones worth keeping and the risky ones worth catching earlier — so your team has something to check future pull requests against long after the engagement ends.
How we run a code review engagement
Repo Onboarding & Threat Model
We get repository access, learn how the project builds, and get an architecture walkthrough — enough to understand where trust boundaries and sensitive data actually sit before we open a single file.
Static Analysis Baseline
A static analyser tuned to your codebase runs first, catching the low-hanging fruit — obvious secrets, clear injection points — and we clear out the false positives before anyone spends time on it.
Manual Review Per Category
An engineer works through the codebase category by category — authentication, authorization, cryptography, deserialization, secret handling, and dependency hygiene — rather than reading top to bottom.
Pattern Catalogue
Rather than leaving each finding as a one-off, we write up the recurring patterns behind them into a checklist your team can reuse in future pull requests.
Reporting & Free Retest
Each finding points straight to the file and line it lives in, and once your fixes are merged, we go back through and confirm they landed — no extra charge.
Scope of testing
- Authentication and session-management logic
- Authorization and tenant-isolation checks
- Cryptography — algorithms, keys, IVs, randomness
- Deserialization, template injection, RCE primitives
- Secret handling, environment-variable leakage, log hygiene
- Dependency review with reachability analysis
- Pattern catalogue scoped to your team's idioms
What we find most often
Code that fetches a URL it shouldn't trust
Image proxies, webhook handlers, and callback endpoints that fetch whatever URL they're given are a reliable way for an attacker to reach internal services that were never meant to face the internet.
Object-merging code that trusts user input too much
A custom or outdated merge function that copies user-controlled keys straight into an object, without blocking the ones that let an attacker tamper with the object's underlying behaviour.
Deserialization that accepts too much
Several common languages ship a deserialization feature that will happily execute code if it's ever handed untrusted input — and that input often traces back further than developers expect.
Raw queries slipped past the ORM's protections
Almost every ORM has an escape hatch for when its query builder can't express what's needed, and that escape hatch frequently loses the injection protection the rest of the codebase relies on.
Sector-aware testing
What you get
01 · Annotated Findings
File and line references so your engineers can navigate straight to the issue.
02 · Pattern Catalogue
A reusable checklist your team can apply in future pull-request reviews.
03 · Engineer Pairing
Optional sessions to walk fixes with your engineers before they ship.
Typical Duration
5–10 working days, depending on codebase size and languages in scope.
What We Need From You
Repository access, build instructions, and a short architecture brief.
Pricing & Retest
[Add your starting price] · free retest included
Buyer questions, answered honestly
Which languages and frameworks do you cover?
We work regularly across Java/Spring, Node.js, Python, Go, Ruby, C#/.NET, and PHP frameworks. Ask us about your specific stack during scoping.
Manual review or SAST?
Both. SAST establishes a fast baseline; manual review finds the business-logic and chained issues scanners miss.
Do you do reachability analysis on dependencies?
Yes — we prioritise vulnerable dependencies that are actually reachable from your code paths over ones that sit unused.
Do you review pull requests as part of the engagement?
It can be scoped in as an add-on, alongside the primary code review engagement.
Do you deliver a pattern catalogue we can use?
Yes, as a standard deliverable — usually the most durable value from the engagement.
Ready to scope this engagement?
We'll align on goals, rules of engagement, and timeline within one working day.