Why not just buy Semgrep ourselves?

Consider it. CredShields adds the curated layer: rule customization, FP suppression, severity calibration.

Can you run this alongside our existing SAST?

Yes. We layer on top of Snyk or Semgrep, applying triage and severity calibration.

Source Code Review & SAST

Source Code Review & SAST: Engineer-Curated Static Analysis

SAST that doesn't flood your backlog.

Source code review and static application security testing (SAST), engineer-curated to suppress false positives. Continuous coverage between manual pentests, integrated with your CI and your existing tool stack. Complement to pentesting, not a replacement.

What's Included

Semgrep, CodeQL, Snyk Code coverage

Custom rule development per codebase

Engineer-validated finding triage

False-positive suppression (kept current)

Severity calibration to your context

01 // THE FALSE POSITIVE PROBLEM

Raw SAST output is unusable.

Most teams that adopt SAST tools quickly discover that 70-90% of findings are false positives in their specific codebase. The team triages a few hundred alerts, gets exhausted, and either ignores the tool or files a ticket to deal with it later. We turn that signal-to-noise problem into actionable findings.

Multi-tool execution: Semgrep, CodeQL, Snyk Code, Bandit, ESLint security plugins
Engineer-validated triage: every finding reviewed before it reaches your team
Custom rule development for codebase-specific patterns
Continuous suppression maintenance as your code evolves

Engineer-curated SAST findings

RAW SCANNER OUTPUT
  Semgrep:    1,247 findings
  Snyk:       823 findings
  CodeQL:     412 findings
  Total:      2,482 findings (with overlap)

AFTER ENGINEER TRIAGE
  False positives:        1,841 (74%)
  Duplicates across tools: 312 (13%)
  True findings:           329 (13%)

AFTER SEVERITY CALIBRATION
  Critical:    4    → block merge
  High:       18    → Jira ticket
  Medium:     67    → Jira backlog
  Low:       240    → silent log

→ Engineering team sees 22 high-priority
  items, not 2,482 alerts.
→ Backlog flood prevented.

02 // PENTEST COMPLEMENT

SAST + pentest is stronger than either alone.

SAST catches a class of issues (injection patterns, hardcoded secrets, weak crypto, dependency vulnerabilities) that's hard to cover with manual pentest. Manual pentest catches business logic, authorization, and complex auth flows that SAST cannot model. Together they cover both surfaces continuously.

SAST: code-level patterns, dependency CVEs, secret leakage, hardcoded credentials
Pentest: business logic, authorization, multi-tenant isolation, auth flows
Combined: continuous code-level coverage + periodic manual testing depth
Same engineer team curates both for consistent severity calibration

Coverage map: SAST vs pentest

SAST CATCHES
  ✓ SQL injection patterns
  ✓ XSS sinks (basic)
  ✓ Hardcoded secrets
  ✓ Weak crypto (DES, MD5)
  ✓ Insecure deserialization
  ✓ Path traversal patterns
  ✓ Dependency CVEs
  ✓ Missing security headers (config)

SAST MISSES
  ✗ Business logic flaws
  ✗ Authorization bypasses
  ✗ Multi-tenant isolation
  ✗ Race conditions
  ✗ State machine flaws
  ✗ Complex auth flows
  ✗ Cross-protocol attacks

PENTEST CATCHES
  ✓ All of "SAST misses" above
  ✓ Some of "SAST catches"
    (with deeper context)

→ Different surfaces. Run both.

Languages & frameworks

Coverage by tech stack.

JavaScript / TypeScript

Node.js, React, Next.js, Express, NestJS, Vue, Angular. Full ESLint security plugins + Semgrep + Snyk Code.

Python

Django, Flask, FastAPI. Bandit + Semgrep + custom rules for ORM-level patterns.

Standard library + popular frameworks (Gin, Echo, Fiber). Custom Semgrep rules for Go-specific patterns.

Java / Kotlin

Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut. CodeQL + SpotBugs + Semgrep. Strong coverage.

Ruby / PHP

Rails, Laravel, Symfony. Brakeman + Semgrep + framework-specific rules.

Rust

Clippy security lints + custom rules. Coverage growing as Rust adoption grows.

Frequently Asked

Common questions, answered.

Why not just buy Semgrep / Snyk / CodeQL ourselves?

You should consider it, especially if you have engineering bandwidth for triage. The CredShields offering is the curated layer on top: rule customization, false-positive suppression, severity calibration, and integration with our pentest engagements for unified severity scoring across SAST and manual findings.

Can you run this on top of our existing SAST tooling?

Yes. Most clients already have Snyk or Semgrep deployed. We layer on top, taking the raw output and applying triage, suppression, and severity calibration. You keep your existing tool licenses; we add the engineering judgment.

Do you write custom rules for our codebase?

Yes. Codebase-specific patterns are where SAST gets most of its value. We write Semgrep and CodeQL rules tuned to your conventions: your custom auth decorator, your ORM patterns, your internal API client wrappers. Rules are documented and yours to keep.

How is this different from Continuous AppSec?

Continuous AppSec is the broader engagement (manual pentest cadence + tooling + compliance evidence). SAST is the static-analysis component within or alongside Continuous AppSec. Standalone SAST engagements are also offered for teams who already have a manual pentest vendor and just want the curated SAST layer.

How do you handle the noise from dependency vulnerabilities?

Dependency CVE noise is its own problem. We integrate with Dependabot/Renovate output, prioritize based on actual exploitability in your runtime context, and silence the long tail of unexploitable transitive dependencies. The goal is one curated dependency-action stream per week, not a thousand alerts.

What languages and frameworks do you not cover well?

Honest answer: less common stacks (Elixir, Erlang, OCaml, Haskell, Clojure, F#) have weaker tooling support. We can cover them with manual review but the SAST tooling is sparse. Embedded / firmware code (C/C++ on constrained devices) is also outside our standard offering.

Can you do source code review without SAST tools?

Yes, this is sometimes scoped as a standalone engagement: senior engineer reads code module-by-module, looking for patterns SAST cannot model. Most useful for security-critical components (auth, payment, crypto) where the value of human-read review exceeds the noise reduction work of SAST triage.

Ready to ship secure?

Talk to a senior engineer. No SDR script, no slide deck. Just a working session about your stack.

Source Code Review & SAST: Engineer-Curated Static Analysis

SAST that doesn't flood your backlog.

Raw SAST output is unusable.

SAST + pentest is stronger than either alone.

Coverage by tech stack.

Common questions, answered.

Continue exploring

The pentest your auditor will accept.The findings your engineers will fix.

The pentest your auditor will accept.
The findings your engineers will fix.