The Ultimate Security Code Review Checklist for Dev and Security Teams

Secure code reviews are one of the most practical and often underutilized controls in modern DevSecOps programs. While many teams rely heavily on automated scanning tools, structured human review remains one of the most effective ways to prevent vulnerabilities from reaching production.

A security-focused code review strengthens SDLC hygiene, reduces downstream remediation costs, and supports compliance requirements across frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, and NIST-based programs. Done consistently, it becomes a forcing function for better engineering discipline.

This guide provides a structured 12-point security code review checklist designed for technical leaders, security engineers, and development teams. Automation can catch patterns. Expert review catches context. You need both.

Why This Guide Exists

The checklist below is informed by years of hands-on secure code reviews across SaaS, fintech, healthcare, and AI-driven platforms. It reflects recurring patterns observed in real-world breach scenarios, especially in authentication flows, authorization logic, and business workflow abuse. In highly regulated environments such as fintech, structured code review processes are often the difference between compliance success and incident response.

What Is a Security Code Review?

A security code review is a structured examination of source code to identify vulnerabilities, insecure design patterns, and implementation flaws before deployment.

It differs from QA or functional testing in important ways:

• QA validates behavior.
• Security review validates resilience against misuse.
• Functional tests confirm features work as expected.
• Security reviews ask how they break.

Security code reviews typically occur:

• During pull request reviews
• As part of pre-release hardening
• During security assessments or audits
• Before major architectural changes

When integrated properly, they become part of the engineering workflow instead of a last-minute compliance exercise.

Why Code Reviews Need a Security Lens

Functional reviews alone are not enough. A security lens changes what reviewers look for.

Key reasons security-focused reviews matter:

• Functional reviews often miss critical security flaws.
• Attackers exploit overlooked insecure coding patterns.
• Security issues become exponentially harder to fix later in the SDLC.
• Compliance standards increasingly expect evidence of secure coding practices.
• Early detection reduces remediation cost and reputational risk.

The goal is not to slow development. It is to prevent high-cost defects from escaping into production.

The 12-Point Security Code Review Checklist

Below is a practical framework technical leaders can integrate into review workflows.

1. Input Validation and Sanitization

All external input should be treated as untrusted.

Review questions:

• Are all user inputs validated at trust boundaries?
• Are regex validations safe and not vulnerable to ReDoS?
• Is type enforcement strict?
• Are assumptions made about “internal” data sources?
• Are inputs revalidated server-side?

2. Output Encoding

Unencoded output remains one of the most common sources of XSS and injection issues.

Review questions:

• Is output properly escaped in the correct context (HTML vs JavaScript vs JSON)?
• Are templating engines configured securely?
• Are dynamic values injected into DOM without encoding?
• Is content rendered in unsafe contexts?

3. Authentication Logic

Authentication failures are high-impact and frequently subtle.

Review questions:

• Are passwords securely hashed with modern algorithms (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2)?
• Is MFA enforced where required?
• Are tokens hardcoded or improperly stored?
• Are JWTs validated properly (signature, expiration, audience)?
• Is authentication logic centralized?

4. Authorization Controls

Broken access control remains a top vulnerability category.

Review questions:

• Are permission checks enforced server-side?
• Is RBAC logic consistent across services?
• Are object-level access controls enforced (preventing IDOR)?
• Are admin paths properly segmented?
• Are APIs verifying ownership before returning data?

5. Session Management

Session mismanagement enables hijacking and persistence attacks.

Review questions:

• Are cookies flagged Secure and HttpOnly?
• Is session expiration enforced?
• Are tokens rotated on privilege escalation?
• Is logout properly invalidating sessions?
• Are refresh tokens handled securely?

6. Cryptography and Key Management

Weak cryptography often hides in legacy modules.

Review questions:

• Are modern algorithms used (avoid MD5, SHA1)?
• Are encryption keys hardcoded?
• Is key rotation implemented?
• Are secrets stored in secure vaults?
• Is cryptographic randomness properly implemented?

7. Error Handling and Logging

Logs frequently leak sensitive information.

Review questions:

• Are stack traces exposed in production?
• Are credentials or tokens logged?
• Is PII redacted?
• Are verbose error messages exposed through APIs?
• Is logging centralized and protected?

8. Dependency and Package Security

Third-party code expands the attack surface.

Review questions:

• Are dependency versions pinned?
• Are known CVEs monitored?
• Are unused packages removed?
• Is supply-chain integrity verified?
• Are automated dependency scans part of CI?

9. File Upload and Path Handling

File handling is a common exploitation vector.

Review questions:

• Are MIME types validated server-side?
• Are file size restrictions enforced?
• Is user input used in file paths?
• Is storage isolated from execution paths?
• Are uploads scanned for malicious content?

10. API Security

APIs require consistent validation across boundaries.

Review questions:

• Is CORS overly permissive?
• Are all endpoints authenticated?
• Are authorization checks duplicated across microservices?
• Are rate limits enforced?
• Are error responses exposing implementation details?

11. Business Logic Vulnerabilities

These are rarely detected by automation.

Review questions:

• Can users skip required workflow steps?
• Are race conditions possible?
• Can pricing or checkout logic be manipulated?
• Are state transitions validated?
• Are multi-step flows enforceable server-side?

12. Code Quality and Security Hygiene

Security debt often hides in poor hygiene.

Review questions:

• Are commented-out secrets present?
• Are debug flags disabled in production?
• Are insecure defaults enabled?
• Is dead code removed?
• Is naming clear enough to reduce misuse?

Automated Checks Are Not Enough

Static analysis tools such as Semgrep or SonarQube provide valuable baseline detection. They excel at:

• Identifying insecure patterns
• Catching injection sinks
• Detecting known misconfigurations
• Flagging dependency risks

However, automation struggles with:

• Business logic abuse
• Authorization path inconsistencies
• Multi-step workflow bypasses
• Contextual misuse of otherwise valid code
• Subtle trust-boundary violations

Human review introduces architectural understanding. It evaluates intent, data flow, and risk tolerance.

In practice, effective secure code review programs combine:

• Automated static analysis for breadth
• Manual review for depth
• Focused inspection of authentication and authorization modules
• Mapping findings to OWASP and ASVS controls
• Retesting after remediation

This layered approach reduces false confidence while maintaining engineering velocity.

Conclusion

Security-focused code reviews are not about adding friction. They are about reducing downstream cost, preventing avoidable incidents, and strengthening engineering maturity. A consistent checklist combined with thoughtful manual review results in fewer production vulnerabilities, cleaner architecture, and stronger compliance posture.

If you want a structured template your team can immediately adopt:

Check out the Secure Code Review Checklist in our GitHub repo
https://hubs.la/Q044CXjX0

If you’re building or refining your secure review process and want to compare approaches, you can also explore:

• Secure Code Review
• NIST SP 800-115 and Penetration Testing
• Why Developer Security Awareness is More Than Just OWASP Top 10

Security improves when it becomes routine. A checklist is where that routine starts.

‍