Source Code Analysis

Separate real security risk inside the codebase with proof.

Eresus source code analysis reviews data flow, identity and authorization decisions, framework usage, secret traces, dependency touchpoints, and exploitable code paths. The goal is not more tool output; it is developer-ready proof tied to files, functions, data paths, and runtime impact.

Book a security briefing All services

Best fit

This engagement creates value fastest for teams like these.

Security and engineering leadership

Teams that need exploit-backed proof before they reprioritize application, API, cloud, or identity work.

Product teams with customer-facing risk

Organizations shipping auth-heavy, multi-tenant, regulated, or internet-exposed systems where logic and authorization flaws matter.

Buyers who need proof, not alert volume

Programs that want reproducible findings, remediation direction, and a closure path instead of scanner noise.

Scope

Static source code analysis and false-positive triage

Data-flow and unsafe sink tracing

Identity, authorization, tenant, and object-level access checks

Framework security defaults and configuration mistakes

Secret, key, and sensitive-data traces

Risk signals

Unknown runtime exploitability of scanner findings

Authorization checked at route level but broken at object level

Secrets left in old commits, test files, or sample configuration

Framework guards, middleware, or validation order wired incorrectly

Code owners cannot see what to fix, where, and why

Outcomes

Findings proven with file, function, and data-flow evidence

Developer-assignable remediation backlog

Prioritized list with false positives removed

Code owner, impact, and retest criteria

Repeatable control recommendations for CI/CD

Code review model

Turn source analysis from ticket noise into closable evidence.

Problem

We select critical repositories, services, identity flows, and risky modules first; we do not blindly report the whole repo.

Attack scenario

We show how user-controlled data reaches an unsafe sink or how an authorization decision breaks.

Proof

Findings are tied to files, lines, functions, data paths, role/tenant scenarios, and HTTP requests when needed.

Delivery

Fix guidance becomes owner-ready backlog, release decision input, and a retest command.

FAQ

The questions buyers want answered early.

How do you scope this engagement?+

We start from assets, business workflows, authorization boundaries, and the attack paths that could create material risk. Scope is shaped around exploitability, not checklist volume.

How are pricing and engagement models structured?+

Pricing is transparent and based on asset surface, API complexity, role hierarchies, and environment constraints. We offer fixed-scope project audits as well as recurring validation retainers for continuous deployment pipelines.

What is the typical test duration and delivery timeline?+

Standard web and API assessments take between 5 to 15 business days depending on scope. Critical zero-day vulnerabilities are communicated immediately via encrypted channels during active testing rather than waiting for report finalization.

What deliverables and report formats do we receive?+

You receive an executive summary for leadership, reproducible PoC exploit chains with raw HTTP requests, CVSS v3.1 scoring, developer-ready remediation code snippets, and a formal compliance attestation letter.

Is retesting included to verify our security fixes?+

Yes. Every engagement includes a complimentary retest window within 30 days of report delivery to validate that fixes have been properly implemented without introducing regression flaws.

Do your reports satisfy DORA, NIS2, SOC 2, and KVKK requirements?+

Yes. Our testing methodology follows OWASP Top 10, PTES, and NIST SP 800-115 standards, providing the technical evidence and methodology documentation required by auditors for DORA Article 25, NIS2 Article 21, SOC 2 Type II, and KVKK technical measures.

We tie risk to business impact.

Findings do not stop at severity labels. We explain which customer workflow, data class, or operational objective is affected.

Deliverables work for engineers and executives.

Engineering teams get reproducible proof and remediation direction; leadership gets the risk narrative, priority, and closure status.

Deep review areas

Explore source analysis by framework, vulnerability class, and AI workflow.

These pages match specific search intent: framework secure code review, IDOR/BOLA, SSRF, JWT/OAuth, RAG, and MCP agent code paths.

Next.js Secure Code Review

Server Actions, API routes, middleware, SSR data access, and client bundle leaks.

NestJS Secure Code Review

Guards, DTO validation, provider boundaries, and microservice handler safety.

IDOR and BOLA Code Review

Object ownership, tenant separation, and service-layer authorization decisions.

SSRF Code Review

Webhook, URL import, fetch, and integration callback outbound request risk.

RAG Application Code Review

Retrieval filters, chunking, source trust, and indirect prompt injection paths.

MCP and Agent Code Review

MCP manifests, tool permissions, agent identity, and production action boundaries.

Related proof

Research and advisories that support this service motion.

Related services

Application Security Testing DevSecOps Enablement Web App Pentest

Research

Let’s scope this work against the surface that matters most.

Whether this starts as a pilot, a single application, a critical API, an AI agent flow, or a wider program, we start from the highest-impact surface.

Book a security briefing Request a scope review