Source Code Audit

WHOAMI’s Source Code Audit service provides a business‑aware secure code review: we identify relevant weaknesses (logic, authorization, dependencies, secrets) and turn them into a prioritized remediation plan based on operational impact. It is especially effective at reducing “silent” risk that isn’t visible from the outside and often materializes in production.

Source Code Audit Service in Spain

WHOAMI provides source code audits in Spain for teams building product software, operating critical APIs, or needing technical evidence within delivery cycles (CI/CD). We scope by repositories, modules, and critical flows to maximize value and avoid “review everything” without prioritization.

For engineering teams and product organizations

A mature code review is not “finding random vulnerabilities”. It’s understanding how the system makes decisions (roles, permissions, state), how it handles sensitive data, and how dependencies/configuration introduce risk. The output should be an executable backlog, not a PDF that gets ignored.

Objective and scope (what’s in, what’s out)

The objective is to identify weaknesses with impact on confidentiality, integrity, availability (resilience to abuse), and traceability. Typical scope includes:

• Critical flows: authentication, authorization, sensitive operations, payments (if applicable)
• Business logic: rules, validations, inconsistent states, edge conditions
• Data handling: minimization, exposure, logs, PII handling
• Dependencies: libraries, supply‑chain risk, versioning and policy
• Secrets and configuration: keys, tokens, variables, permissions, insecure defaults
• CI/CD: baseline controls to prevent regressions and accidental exposure

What we validate (and why it matters)

We translate findings into consequences. Examples:

• Correct authorization: prevents improper actions and data exposure driven by permission flaws
• Business integrity: reduces fraud/abuse driven by logical inconsistencies
• Dependency control: lowers supply‑chain risk and unexpected behavior
• Secret handling: reduces leakage and unwanted persistence
• Abuse resilience: strengthens high‑impact flows and endpoints

Code audit vs web audit

They complement each other and answer different questions:

• Web audit: validates exposure and controls in the running system (flows, roles, sessions, APIs)
• Code audit: goes into internal logic, non‑exposed paths, validations, dependencies, and design

If you need runtime exposure visibility, a Web Security Audit is a better fit. If you want to improve security “from within”, a code audit is the lever.

Engagement options (by flows / by components / by risk)

• By critical flows: best value for time (login, permissions, sensitive operations)
• By components: specific modules/services (API, backoffice, worker, shared library)
• By risk: focus on high‑exposure areas (integrations, data, recent changes)

Deliverables (what you receive)

• Executive report (impact, priorities, decisions)
• Technical report per finding (context, evidence, recommendation)
• Prioritized backlog (tickets/actions grouped by theme)
• Roadmap (quick wins vs structural improvements)
• Review session with engineering to align remediation
• Follow‑up review (optional) to confirm critical fixes

What we need to start

To keep the engagement efficient:

• Repository access and relevant branches (or a snapshot)
• Minimal documentation for critical flows and permission model
• Component map (services/modules/integrations) if available
• Technical point of contact to validate design decisions and exceptions

How we prioritize

We prioritize by impact (data, fraud, continuity), exposure (roles/surface), likelihood (existing controls), and cost/benefit—so the plan is executable and reduces risk measurably.

Timelines and planning

It depends on size and depth. As a guideline:

• Scoped review by critical flows: typically 1–2 weeks
• Mid‑size review (multiple modules/services): typically 2–4 weeks
• Large platforms: phased by objectives (baseline + deep dives)

What this audit is NOT (service boundaries)

• Not a certification nor a guarantee of total security
• Not a how‑to guide: we describe risk and impact, not offensive recipes
• Not “all the code”: we scope to deliver real value