All features Security audit
Security workflow
Available nowAudit the code paths that define your real attack surface.
Winfunc reviews an authorized repository revision with application context, follows relevant source-to-sink paths, and persists the evidence behind each conclusion. Findings keep validation status, assumptions, and remediation context attached so your team can inspect the reasoning before acting.
Security auditAvailable now
01Authorized scope
02evidence-led investigation
03report and review
The problem
Security work should end in a decision, not another queue.
A useful audit needs more than a scanner result. Engineers need the exact revision, the path from attacker-controlled input to a vulnerable operation, the controls that were checked, and a clear line between observed evidence and inference.
WorkflowAuthorized scope → evidence-led investigation → report and review
How it works
From scope to an engineering decision.
Define the repositories, application boundaries, revision, permissions, and security questions that should guide the assessment. Where runtime validation is useful, agree on a suitable test environment and explicit testing boundaries.
- 01Scope
Agree on the application, questions, and authorized scope
- 02Investigate
Map entry points, security boundaries, and high-risk code paths
- 03Investigate
Validate candidates against reachable code and existing controls
- 04Review
Review version-bound findings and suggested changes with your team
Review-ready output
What your team gets.
Source-to-sink findings with supporting evidence
Validation status and fixes for engineering review
Built for handoff
Evidence your team can inspect.
Keep the reviewed scope, supporting evidence, uncertainty, and next action together so security and engineering can make the same decision from the same context.
Measure the workflow
Compare investigation time, supported findings, time to an engineering decision, and remediation lead time against a similar previous assessment.
A clear record of the reviewed scope and revision
Findings tied to affected code, trigger paths, and vulnerable operations
Validation outcomes with checked controls, assumptions, and open questions
Reproduction guidance or proof material where feasible and authorized
Severity rationale, limitations, and recommended next steps
Suggested remediation or an approval-gated fix workflow where appropriate
Why it matters
Give your team a concrete security baseline without making engineers reconstruct the evidence behind every alert.
Scope & limits
Coverage follows the agreed code, revision, context, and test boundaries. Untested impact is labeled as inference; engineers review every proposed change.