Penetration TestingCode Review
We review your code manually and with tooling to find vulnerabilities, hard-coded secrets and risky dependencies, then help your developers fix them and keep them fixed through the pipeline.
01Overview
Secure source code review is a systematic examination of an application's source code to find security flaws such as injection, broken authentication, insecure cryptography and exposed secrets, so they can be fixed before the software is released or while it is in production.
Testing a running application shows what is reachable. Reviewing the code shows why, and finds flaws no test happened to trigger. The two together give the strongest assurance.
We combine automated static analysis for coverage with manual review of the code that matters most: authentication, authorisation, payments, data handling and cryptography.
Key facts
02What we do
Use one for a release, or all six as a continuous programme.
Experienced reviewers read the code that carries the most risk.
What you receive
Findings no tool reports, with root cause.
Automated scanning across the whole codebase, tuned to remove noise.
What you receive
Broad coverage with low noise.
Open-source components checked for known vulnerabilities and licence risk.
What you receive
A software bill of materials and an upgrade plan.
Keys, tokens and passwords committed to repositories or pipelines.
What you receive
Exposed secrets found and rotated.
Security checks that run on every build, without slowing teams down.
What you receive
Security as part of the build.
Hands-on secure coding sessions using your own findings.
What you receive
Fewer repeat findings.
03How we work
We review, fix and re-check in short cycles rather than one large report.
Repositories, languages, risk areas and the review depth.
Automated analysis across the codebase.
Manual review of the high-risk code.
Validate findings and remove false positives.
Developers fix with our guidance and patterns.
Re-scan and confirm closure.
04Reference
Each technique finds different things.
| Technique | Finds | Misses | Best used |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAST (static) | Code-level flaws and insecure patterns | Runtime and configuration issues | Every commit |
| SCA | Vulnerable and risky dependencies | Flaws in your own code | Every build |
| DAST / penetration test | Exploitable flaws in the running app | Hidden code paths | Pre-release and yearly |
| Manual code review | Logic, authorisation and design flaws | Nothing in scope, but slower | Critical components |
05Technology
We work with your repositories and pipelines.
Analysis
Repositories and pipelines
Logos are trademarks of their respective owners and are shown to indicate platforms we work with.
06Saudi Arabia and the GCC
Software built for the Kingdom increasingly carries regulated data.
The ECC expects secure development practices for applications, and critical systems face stricter requirements.
We can review on your premises or in your repositories, so code does not leave your environment.
Payment and e-invoicing integrations handle sensitive and signed data and deserve manual review.
07Why GoAgile
We write software, so we write fixes, not just findings.
Our own engineers review your code.
Tickets in your tracker, checks in your CI.
On-premises or in-repository review.
Developers learn from their own code.
Severity, exploitability and the fix.
Review loops that fit your release cadence.
Credentials
08Clients
Organisations in regulated sectors choose GoAgile because security is delivered by the team that also builds and runs their infrastructure.
Tier-1 Saudi bank
Banking
National energy operator
Oil, gas and power
Government authority
Public sector
Regional telecom operator
Telecommunications
Healthcare group
Hospitals and clinics
Retail and e-commerce group
Retail
Ports and logistics operator
Logistics
Insurance company
Insurance
Fintech and payments provider
Financial technology
Industrial manufacturer
Manufacturing
A customer-facing platform was about to launch and needed independent assurance.
Result: Critical issues fixed before launch and developers trained on the patterns found.
The bank needed evidence that its people, processes and detection would hold up against a realistic attacker, in line with SAMA expectations.
Result: Detection gaps were fixed, playbooks were updated and the board received a plain-language report.
Plant networks had grown without a clear map, and remote access for vendors was a concern.
Result: A mapped, segmented network with a prioritised remediation plan the plant team could schedule.
Client names are withheld for confidentiality.
09Related services
Each service stands alone and works better with the others.
Tell us the stack and the repositories in scope. We will propose a review plan and a fixed price.
Scope a code review10Questions answered
Tell us about your environment and what you need. We will respond with a scoped proposal, not a brochure.
Specialists who do this work every week, reporting in Arabic and English.