WEFT / Code security
Find and fix risk before it becomes
release risk.
Combine expert code review with focused tooling, clear ownership, practical fixes, and verification that the issue is actually resolved.
One-time or ongoing · Only approved scope and access
WEFT Security / Code securityRepresentative delivery view
Current scope
Review evidenceFind and fix risk before it becomes
01Authorization flaw in workflowManual review · business logicFix planned
02Reachable dependency vulnerabilitySCA · fix availableReview fix
03Secret exposed in a changeRedacted evidenceRotate
Tools and standards used where relevant
- Manual review
- OpenGrep
- Trivy
- Gitleaks
- Checkov
- CycloneDX
What the engagement changes
Focused work. Clear ownership. Verified results.
Review the risks tools miss.
Manual judgment and automated checks cover code, dependencies, secrets, IaC, and the software supply chain.
Know what needs action first.
Exploitability, exposure, business impact, reachability, and fix availability are kept distinct and explained.
Move from a finding to a verified fix.
Developers get useful remediation guidance, change review, and retesting against the original evidence.
Service coverage
Know exactly what can be in scope.
The final scope is based on your application, environment, access, deadline, and risk—not a generic checklist.
Secure code review
Manual review and static analysis focus on exploitable flaws, insecure logic, and risky implementation patterns.
Dependencies & SBOM
Vulnerable and malicious packages, dependency relationships, licenses, and CycloneDX evidence stay connected.
Secrets
Exposed credentials are reported with redacted evidence and practical rotation guidance.
Infrastructure as code
Supported IaC is checked for insecure defaults, excessive access, and deployment risk.
Pull-request review
Change-focused checks help teams find security problems before merge or release.
Remediation support
Findings include context, a fix path, and comparable verification after the change.
Developer workflow
Put useful feedback beside the change.
Assessments can cover a release, a focused code area, a pull request, or a broader application depending on the risk and deadline.
- ✓Manual and automated review
- ✓Full or change-focused scope
- ✓Findings linked to affected code and owner
Review evidenceRepresentative
01Scope agreedRepositories and release definedApproved
02Evidence reviewedTool output plus human judgmentCurrent
03Fix verifiedComparable retestClosed
Remediation
Make findings easier to fix, not merely easier to count.
We explain the vulnerable path, likely impact, and smallest safe change, then work with the responsible team through verification.
- ✓Clear reproduction and impact
- ✓Practical fix options
- ✓Retest evidence and residual risk
Finding lifecycleRepresentative
01Issue reproducedEvidence retainedConfirmed
02Change reviewedDeveloper-ownedReady
03RetestOriginal condition checkedVerified
How the service works
From approved scope to verified decision.
Testing depth and access are matched to the environment. Findings move through review, remediation support, and comparable retesting.
Agree the scope
Choose the application, repositories, release, access, and outcomes that matter.
Review code and supply chain
Use manual analysis and relevant scanners while preserving uncertainty and tool provenance.
Triage with your team
Confirm impact, ownership, priority, and the safest useful remediation path.
Fix and verify
Support the change and retest the affected path before marking it resolved.
Source boundary
Source access stays narrow and approved.
The delivery method is agreed before access. Local or customer-hosted execution can be used where source must remain in your environment.
Inspect trust practices- ✓Access is limited to agreed repositories, branches, and people.
- ✓Temporary workspaces are removed after the job where hosted review is used.
- ✓Reports avoid unnecessary source and secret material.
- ✓Failed, missing, or partial checks never become a clean result.
Complete application security
Bring in the other service areas when the scope needs them.
Is this only automated SAST?
No. Tooling supports the work, but the service can include manual code review, business-logic analysis, triage, remediation help, and verification.
Can you work inside our environment?
Yes, when the engagement requires it and the access model is agreed. The aim is to keep source and credentials within the narrowest practical boundary.
Will you help developers fix findings?
Yes. Findings include an actionable fix path, and the engagement can include working sessions, change review, and retesting.
Start with the application and outcome
Define a safe, useful scope.
Tell us what you build, what changed, what must be protected, and when you need the answer.