Source-code and secure-design review examines whether architecture and implementation decisions introduce vulnerabilities before they become costly production incidents. The service is intended for software teams that need expert analysis of high-risk code, security-critical components or new designs beyond standard automated scanning.
The purpose is to validate realistic attack paths safely and convert technical weaknesses into remediation priorities.
We agree the precise scope up front. Depending on the objective, environment and authorised access, the engagement may cover:
Select the architecture, repositories, components, languages and risk questions in scope.
Map data flows, identities, entry points and abuse cases.
Inspect high-risk code paths and use targeted tools where they add coverage.
Confirm context, exploitability, intended behaviour and feasible fixes.
Provide remediation guidance, secure patterns and review conclusions to the engineering team.
Outputs are prepared for executives and for the technical teams doing the remediation. Depending on scope, they may include:
Testing is governed by written authorisation, explicit exclusions, safety limits and emergency contacts. Material findings are manually validated, supported with reproducible evidence and explained in terms of realistic impact rather than scanner severity alone.
The engagement may draw on OWASP ASVS, OWASP Software Assurance Maturity Model, SEI CERT guidance where relevant, language and framework-specific secure coding guidance. Where we cite a standard, it explains our method only — it is not a certification, accreditation or official determination.
We confirm the timeline at scoping; it reflects the environment's complexity, the evidence on hand and access to the right people.
The review covers the supplied architecture and code at a point in time. It does not replace secure development ownership, comprehensive testing of the running application or continuous dependency management unless separately included.
Discuss Source-Code and Secure-Design Review with CTG. In a focused scoping call we agree the objective, scope, evidence, delivery model and outputs, then send a proposal.
We agree the precise scope up front. Typical areas include security architecture, trust boundaries and data flows, Threat modelling and abuse cases, Authentication, authorisation and session logic, and Input handling, business logic and error behaviour. The proposal documents what is out of scope, what access we need, what you provide and how success is judged.
Deliverables depend on the agreed objective and may include threat model and trust-boundary diagrams, Architecture-security observations, Source-code findings with file and function references, and Root-cause and exploitability explanation. We connect each key conclusion to its evidence, its impact, its priority and an accountable action.
Authorised testing can create risk if it is poorly controlled. CTG agrees testing windows, prohibited techniques, stop conditions and emergency contacts before work begins, and uses higher-risk techniques only with explicit approval.
Retesting can be included in the initial scope or ordered after remediation. It validates the previously confirmed findings and closely related bypass conditions; it is not automatically a complete new assessment.
We confirm the timeline at scoping; it reflects the environment's complexity, the evidence on hand and access to the right people.
They address adjacent but separate needs. Scoping identifies whether Source-Code and Secure-Design Review, Secure Software-Development Lifecycle, or a coordinated programme is the smallest useful approach without duplicating work.
The review covers the supplied architecture and code at a point in time. It does not replace secure development ownership, comprehensive testing of the running application or continuous dependency management unless separately included.
