Find the vulnerabilities that live in the code, not just around it.
Manual security review for applications, games, APIs, and software preparing for release. The work focuses on architecture, trust boundaries, data flow, business logic, and implementation details that automated tools can miss.
Automated tools are useful inputs. Human review is where architecture, business logic, and context-specific security decisions are tested.
Follow the code through the trust boundaries.
A useful review starts by understanding what the software is supposed to do, where data enters, what it can influence, and where security decisions are enforced.
Review the code paths where mistakes become security problems.
The exact focus depends on language, architecture, and release context. The review is scoped around risk rather than a fixed checklist.
Input & injection
Server-side validation, unsafe query construction, command execution, path handling, serialization, and output encoding.
Authentication & authorization
Identity flows, session handling, privilege checks, access-control enforcement, and trust placed in client-side state.
Business logic
State transitions, workflow bypasses, race conditions, resource limits, and assumptions that automated tools rarely understand well.
Secrets, crypto & configuration
Credential handling, hardcoded secrets, cryptographic use, environment separation, logging, error behavior, and deployment-sensitive configuration.
Dependencies & unsafe implementation patterns
Third-party libraries, risky APIs, memory-safety concerns where relevant, and code patterns that expand attack surface.
Full codebase or release-focused.
OWASP distinguishes baseline reviews of an application from diff-based reviews focused on changes. XecureLogic can scope either model depending on what needs assurance.
OWASP Secure Code Review guidance ↗Understand the whole system.
Useful for new applications, major releases, legacy onboarding, or software where the security posture needs to be understood end to end.
Concentrate on what changed.
Focus on modified files, changed trust boundaries, new integrations, new attack paths, and potential security regressions before release.
Code review before launch.
For software preparing for public release—including desktop applications and games—the review can prioritize the security-sensitive paths most likely to matter once the software reaches real users.
Findings developers can act on.
The output should make it easy to understand what is vulnerable, why it matters, and what needs to change.
Vulnerable code path, security impact, and the conditions required to exploit it.
Relevant source locations, data flow, and reproduction details where appropriate.
Concrete engineering guidance rather than generic “best practice” language.
A technical review of the issues that matter most before the next release decision.
Questions before a code review.
The review works best when access, scope, and handling expectations are explicit from the start.
01 / AccessWhat access do you need, and how is our source code handled?
Access is limited to what the agreed review requires. Repository access, branches or release artifacts, build context, handling constraints, and retention expectations are defined before the review begins. We avoid unnecessary copies and do not broaden access beyond the approved scope.
02 / CoverageWhich languages and frameworks can you review?
Coverage is confirmed during scoping based on the actual codebase and runtime. We do not claim support for a language or platform we cannot review responsibly. The architecture, security-sensitive components, native code, dependencies, and deployment model all affect the review plan.
03 / Review modeDo we need a full codebase review, or can you review only a release diff?
Either model can make sense. A baseline review is useful when the overall security posture or architecture needs to be understood. A diff-focused review is appropriate when the objective is to inspect changed code, new trust boundaries, or release-specific regressions. The choice is made from the risk and release context, not from a fixed package.
04 / VerificationDo you verify fixes after the review?
Fix verification can be included or scoped as follow-up work. We review the changed code path and relevant surrounding logic to confirm that the reported issue was addressed without introducing an obvious bypass or regression.
05 / ContextDo you need the application running, or is source code enough?
Source code is the core input, but additional context can materially improve the review. Architecture notes, build instructions, configuration, API contracts, threat assumptions, and access to a representative test environment can help validate how security-sensitive code behaves in practice. The exact access is agreed before work starts.