One system. Find it, prove it, fix it.
Continuous security coverage and one-off audits run on the same engine. Pick the mode that fits.
What it does
The full scan.
Static + dynamic + supply chain.
SAST, DAST, IaC, and SCA in a single pass. Winfunc follows code paths and exploitability, not just patterns.
The result is a shorter list of findings that read like actual engineering work, not a wall of maybe-issues.
Proof ships with every finding.
Exploit PoCs, severity reasoning, and fix guidance live in the same report. The case is built before you open the ticket.
Cuts down the usual back-and-forth between eng, security, and anyone asking "is this real?"
Patches tied to the code that broke.
Remediation follows the specific code path, threat model, and surrounding implementation.
Less time rewriting vague advice. More time reviewing patches that actually make sense.
Stays current as the code moves.
The archive, proof, and remediation path stay in sync with your repository. Not a snapshot that goes stale.
That's the difference between a one-off review and an ongoing security workflow.
Audits
Or start with one review.
Scope.
We start with the repo, the trust boundaries, and the parts of the system where proof matters most. You tell us what's critical; we confirm or push back.
Scan and prove.
You get a focused set of findings with exploit detail, technical reasoning, and fix guidance. Not a 200-page PDF of maybes.
Fix or continue.
Some teams stop at the audit and patch what matters. Others use it as the starting point for continuous coverage. Both are fine.
What changes
01Less time debating severity
02Faster path from finding to merged fix
03Proof your team can put in front of buyers, auditors, or leadership
Next
See the proof first.
Read the public findings. Then talk to the team about what a scan of your codebase would look like.