31%
Software vulnerabilities are now the leading breach entry point
Verizon found that 31% of breaches began with exploitation of software vulnerabilities, overtaking stolen credentials for the first time in the report’s 19-year history.
Application security review
Find and prioritise security weaknesses in your application code.
LAN10 AppSec Review analyses your application's source code at an exact commit using two independent AI security reviewers. Every candidate finding is assessed by a human reviewer before it reaches the final report.
Independent AI analysis. Human-reviewed findings.
WHY NOW
Find the weakness before it becomes an AI-enabled attack path.
Software vulnerabilities are now the leading breach entry point. Exploitation can follow the release of a public proof of concept within 48 hours, and frontier AI systems have demonstrated that they can identify and exploit previously unknown flaws. The window to find and fix weaknesses first is narrowing.
88%
Exploitation can follow within 48 hours
In the first half of 2026, 88% of CrowdStrike-observed exploitation involving vulnerabilities with a public proof of concept occurred within 48 hours of the proof of concept being released.
ZERO-DAY
AI can move from discovery to exploitation
OpenAI reported that agents in cybersecurity evaluations exploited previously unknown vulnerabilities, moved beyond intended isolation controls and compromised parts of Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.
The advantage belongs to whoever finds the weakness first.
That is what LAN10 AppSec Review is for.
The review process
From repository to reviewed report
One run moves through four defined stages: the code is pinned to an exact commit, two AI security reviewers analyse it independently, overlapping findings are consolidated deterministically, and a human reviewer assesses every candidate before the report is approved.
Report preview
See the deliverable before you engage
A synthetic example of how a confirmed finding appears in the final report.
Security review report
Illustrative example - not a customer result
- Reviewed commit
- 7c49e2a
- Scope
- API authorisation module
- Coverage
- Complete
- Confirmed findings
- 4
- Dismissed candidates
- 3
Missing authorisation check on account export
High
- Severity
- High
- Location
- src/api/export.ts:84
- Decision
- Confirmed by human reviewer
- Reported by
- Reviewer A and Reviewer B
Evidence
The export handler verifies authentication but does not check that the requested account belongs to the authenticated tenant.
Remediation
Enforce tenant-scoped authorisation before generating or returning the export.
The deliverable
One report your engineering team can act on
The final report turns candidate findings in your application code into a reviewed, prioritised set of actions tied to the exact commit assessed.
Prioritised findings
Only human-confirmed findings appear as report findings.
Evidence and location
Each finding identifies the relevant code location and supporting evidence.
Final severity and rationale
The human reviewer records the final severity and the reason for the decision.
Remediation guidance
Each confirmed finding includes practical guidance for engineering teams.
Finding provenance
The report records which reviewer reported the issue and retains the underlying reviewer material.
Scope and coverage
The report states the commit reviewed, the coverage achieved and any limitations.
When to use it
For code that needs an independent security view
Use LAN10 AppSec Review when a security-sensitive release, customer review or internal assurance decision needs an independent view of the application code.
Before a major release
Review security-sensitive code before it reaches customers or enters a critical deployment stage.
Independent assurance
Give engineering and security leaders an independent assessment of a defined codebase.
Customer and technical reviews
Provide a traceable report tied to the exact version of code that was reviewed.
Human accountability
AI proposes. A human decides.
AI reviewers can surface candidate issues quickly, but they do not make the final call. Every candidate finding is assessed by a human reviewer before the report is approved.
Confirm or dismiss
Every candidate receives an explicit human decision.
Set final severity
Reviewer agreement does not determine the final rating.
Record the rationale
Each decision records the reviewer's reasoning and decision history.
Built for traceability
Clear scope. Preserved evidence. Recorded decisions.
Exact-commit scope
The report identifies the precise commit reviewed.
Independent review streams
Neither AI reviewer receives the other reviewer's analysis.
Non-destructive consolidation
Overlapping findings are consolidated without discarding the original reviewer records.
Coverage disclosed
Partial or limited coverage is reported as such.
Ephemeral source handling
Source is cloned into a run container created for the review and removed when the run ends.
Source handling
A defined review environment for a defined codebase
The repository is reviewed at an exact commit inside an ephemeral run environment. The run container and its filesystem are removed when the review ends.
Read the confidentiality approachCommon questions
Get an independent view of your codebase
Tell us what you need reviewed and why. We will recommend an appropriate scope and provide a quote for the engagement.
Request a scoped reviewHuman-reviewed findings on every engagement