EresusSecurity
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.

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.

01

Problem

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

02

Attack scenario

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

03

Proof

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

04

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.
What do we receive at the end?+
You receive proof-backed findings, business impact framing, developer-ready remediation guidance, and a retest path for closure.
Do you help with remediation and retest?+
Yes. We work through remediation direction and validate critical fixes so the team can close risk without guesswork.

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.

Next step

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.