Build buyer confidence into your SaaS security.
Review tenant isolation, authorization, APIs, AI data flows and key security controls. Then receive prioritized findings, remediation guidance and evidence you can use during customer security reviews.
Know what your next serious customer will want to understand
Preparing for your first enterprise customer
Security questionnaires and procurement reviews are coming. Know where you stand before they ask.
Moving from single-tenant to multi-tenant
Adding organizations, roles, and customer boundaries introduces new attack surfaces.
Launching an AI, RAG, or agent feature
AI introduces prompt injection, cross-tenant retrieval, and tool abuse vectors traditional security misses.
Preparing for SOC 2 readiness
Identify application-security and evidence gaps before your audit engagement.
Responding to a customer security questionnaire
Get structured answers and evidence instead of guessing or stalling.
Strengthening security before scaling
Fix the boundary between customers before more data sits behind it.
The security boundary is tested as a connected system
Authentication, authorization, API routes, database queries, storage, background jobs, realtime, exports, and AI-specific controls are reviewed together, not in isolation.
Authentication & Authorization
Session handling, organization context, role enforcement, RBAC boundaries, invitation and membership operations.
Database & RLS
Row-level security policies, tenant-scoped queries, service-role bypass paths, security-definer functions.
API Authorization
Route authentication coverage, IDOR testing, resource ownership checks, tenant-scoped CRUD operations.
Storage & File Isolation
Upload ownership, bucket policies, signed URL behavior, cross-tenant deletion, public vs private access.
Background Jobs & Queues
Tenant context preservation in async jobs, webhooks, queues, and scheduled tasks.
Realtime & Subscriptions
Subscription isolation, channel scoping, cache and search tenant boundaries.
Exports & Reporting
Export authorization, report scoping, analytics tenant safety.
Admin & Support Routes
Administrative capability controls, support access boundaries, secrets and service credential scoping.
A major differentiator in the review
Tenant isolation is tested as a system. Each boundary is documented with a constructive status so you and your customers immediately understand what was reviewed.
What is tested
How each boundary is documented
Verified as designed
The boundary holds under testing. Evidence documents what was tested and how it held.
Improvement identified
The boundary has a gap or weakness. Findings include severity, affected component, and remediation.
Requires additional evidence
The boundary could not be fully verified. Additional validation is recommended.
Not applicable
The boundary does not apply to the current architecture or scope.
When AI features exist, the attack surface expands
Static AI security analysis, runtime adversarial testing, and documentation suitable for audits. Covers prompt injection, RAG authorization, tool abuse, agent privilege boundaries, and AI supply-chain review.
Prompt Injection Resilience
Direct, indirect, and MCP-tool-description injection vectors. System prompt integrity and user input sanitization.
RAG Authorization
Cross-tenant retrieval testing. Vector search isolation. Document ingestion security. Embedding pipeline review.
Tool/Function Authorization
Agent tool access against least privilege. Missing approval workflows. Automatic execution risks. MCP server security.
Sensitive Data Exposure
What data is sent to AI providers. Model/API credential protection. Output validation before business actions.
Agent Privilege Boundaries
Instruction hierarchy. System-prompt exposure. Fallback behavior when AI cannot complete a request confidently.
AI Inventory & Supply Chain
AI component inventory. Third-party model/provider review. AI dependency audit. Vendor checks.
A professional package you can use with customers
Scope Manifest
Written scope defining routes, roles, storage, AI components, test accounts, environment, methodology version, and review boundaries. Agreed before the review begins.
Executive Security Review
Review objective, architecture/scope summary, key assurance observations, priority improvements, tenant-isolation summary, AI-security summary, enterprise-readiness observations, SOC 2 readiness observations, recommended next actions.
Technical Findings
Each finding includes: finding ID, title, severity/priority, affected component, description, business/security relevance, testing/reproduction, evidence, control/framework references, recommended remediation, retest status.
Coverage Matrix
Transparent coverage showing REVIEWED, VERIFIED, IMPROVEMENT IDENTIFIED, ADDITIONAL VALIDATION RECOMMENDED, NOT APPLICABLE, or OUTSIDE CURRENT REVIEW SCOPE for each area.
Tenant Isolation Matrix
Where applicable: each boundary tested, status, evidence reference, and remediation status.
AI Security Matrix
Where AI features exist: each AI attack vector tested, status, evidence reference, and remediation status.
Control / Framework Crosswalk
Findings mapped to OWASP LLM, OWASP AppSec, NIST AI RMF, NIST cybersecurity, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, SOC 2, EU AI Act, and state-level AI regulations where applicable.
Evidence Manifest
Finding IDs, rule IDs, run IDs, timestamps, application version/commit, environment, SHA-256 evidence hashes via ISAF, sanitized test evidence, and control references.
Retest Record
After remediation: each finding retested with status (Verified, Additional Work Recommended, or Risk Accepted by Client). Final Remediation Verification Summary.
Security Review Record
A consolidated record of the review: scope, methodology, findings, coverage, evidence references, remediation status, and verification outcomes. Suitable for internal governance and audit trail.
Buyer-Shareable Summary
A sanitized executive summary suitable for sharing with prospective customers. Confirms a scoped review occurred without exposing confidential technical findings.
TEST to VERIFICATION: every finding traces through the full chain
Every finding traces through the full chain from test to verification. You can see what was evaluated, why a finding matters, what control it relates to, how it was addressed, and what evidence supports the record.
TEST
Controlled test executed against the application boundary
FINDING
Result classified with severity and affected component
CONTROL
Related security control identified
EVIDENCE
SHA-256 hash chain via ISAF, sanitized test artifacts
FRAMEWORK
Cross-referenced to OWASP, NIST, ISO, SOC 2, EU AI Act
REMEDIATION
Prioritized fix with code-level guidance
RETEST
Verification that the fix holds under the same test
Cryptographic evidence
Evidence is cryptographically fingerprinted using SHA-256 hash chains via ISAF Logger (open source, PyPI). This produces tamper-evident records with integrity-verifiable evidence and version-linked provenance.
ISAF uses SHA-256 hash chains (symmetric cryptographic primitives). It does not use asymmetric digital signatures. This distinction is documented in the methodology. The sales focus is: evidence you can verify.
Ready for the next security conversation
Prepare technical evidence for SOC 2 readiness and customer security reviews. The deliverable helps you answer security questionnaires, buyer technical diligence, and enterprise procurement.
SOC 2 readiness positioning
This review supports SOC 2 readiness. It is not a SOC 2 audit or certification.
Framework alignment
Findings are cross-referenced with relevant controls and guidance from:
Frameworks are mapped to actual findings. Not decorative logos.
A structured process from scope to verification
Fit / Scope Call
20 to 30 minutes. We discuss your architecture, stack, tenant model, AI features, customer requirements, and timeline.
Scope Defined
Written scope: routes, roles, storage, AI components, test accounts, environment, and methodology version.
Access & Test Accounts
Repository access, staging environment, synthetic tenant accounts, and relevant credentials scoped to minimum required permissions.
Security Review
Static analysis, architecture review, and adversarial testing across the defined scope using a tested methodology.
Evidence-Backed Findings
Each finding traced through test, evidence, control reference, and remediation. Evidence fingerprinted via ISAF SHA-256 hash chains.
Remediation Discussion
Walkthrough of findings, priorities, and remediation approach. Technical appendix for developers.
Retest
After remediation: each finding retested. Status moves to Verified, Additional Work Recommended, or Risk Accepted by Client.
Final Review + Verification Summary
Executive review, coverage matrix, evidence manifest, buyer-shareable summary, and remediation verification.
Clear starting point, scoped to your architecture
Focused SaaS Security Review
from $950
A focused review for a single application: authorization, API routes, membership, storage, and written findings. The right starting point for most SaaS and AI products.
- Architecture and authorization review
- Priority API routes and membership review
- Storage and file isolation review
- Written findings and remediation priorities
- Findings walkthrough call
Multi-tenant, AI/RAG, and broader application reviews are scoped based on architecture and review surface. Remediation and retest are scoped from findings. You will know the scope and price before the review begins.
What your next serious customer will want to understand
The review helps answer these questions where applicable. Not every question applies to every architecture.
Tenant Boundaries
- How is each customer's data separated?
- Are tenant boundaries enforced server-side?
- Can users access only the organizations and objects they are authorized to use?
Authentication & Authorization
- How do authentication and authorization work together?
- Are API routes enforcing the same boundaries as the application?
- Are role changes and invitations protected?
Storage & Infrastructure
- Are storage and files correctly scoped?
- Are exports and reports tenant-safe?
- Do background jobs preserve organization context?
- Do realtime subscriptions stay inside the correct tenant?
AI Security (when applicable)
- Can retrieval return data from another tenant?
- Are AI tools and functions constrained by the user's actual authorization?
- What data is sent to AI providers?
- Are model/API credentials appropriately protected?
- How are AI outputs validated before business actions occur?
- What happens when AI cannot complete a request confidently?
Enterprise Readiness
- What evidence can be shown to a prospective enterprise customer?
- What should be strengthened before customer security review or procurement?
- Which controls already have usable evidence?
- What is the most valuable next security improvement?
SaaS security review FAQ
What is a SaaS security review?+
A SaaS security review evaluates your application security boundaries: tenant isolation, authentication, authorization, API routes, storage, and AI-specific controls. You receive prioritized findings, remediation guidance, and evidence you can share during customer security reviews and procurement.
How is this different from a penetration test?+
This is a specialized application-security and architecture review focused on tenant isolation, authorization boundaries, and AI-specific attack surfaces. It does not replace a comprehensive network penetration test or compliance certification. It complements them by covering areas traditional pentesting does not: cross-tenant access, RAG authorization, prompt injection, and AI tool abuse.
Do you test Supabase Row-Level Security policies?+
Yes. A Supabase review covers RLS policies for reads, inserts, updates, and deletes; membership functions; service-role paths; storage policies; security-definer functions; and the relationship between server-side routes and database enforcement.
Can you review AI/RAG/agent features?+
Yes. When AI functionality exists, the review covers prompt injection resilience, RAG authorization and cross-tenant retrieval, tool/function authorization, agent privilege boundaries, model/API credential protection, output validation, and AI supply-chain dependencies.
What evidence do I receive?+
Every material finding traces through TEST, FINDING, EVIDENCE, CONTROL/FRAMEWORK REFERENCE, REMEDIATION, and RETEST. Evidence includes finding IDs, rule IDs, run IDs, timestamps, application version, environment, SHA-256 evidence hashes (via ISAF), sanitized test evidence, and control references.
Do you offer retesting after remediation?+
Yes. Retesting is a core part of the workflow. Each finding moves through: Finding Identified, Remediation In Progress, Ready For Retest, Retest Verified (or Additional Work Recommended, or Risk Accepted by Client). A final Remediation Verification Summary is provided.
Is this a SOC 2 certification?+
No. This review helps you identify application-security and evidence gaps that may affect SOC 2 readiness. It produces technical evidence and control documentation that supports your SOC 2 readiness process, but it is not a SOC 2 audit or certification.
What stacks do you review?+
Next.js App Router, React/TypeScript, Supabase Auth and RLS, PostgreSQL, Prisma, Neon, NextAuth/Auth.js, Vercel, Stripe billing, and AI-built applications from Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Cursor, and Windsurf. If your stack differs, request a fit review.
How long does a review take?+
A focused review can be completed within several business days after access and scope are ready. A multi-tenant or AI application review may require one to several weeks depending on route count, data models, storage systems, AI complexity, and environment readiness.
What access do you need?+
A read-only repository review can begin with source access and architecture context. Behavioral verification normally requires a dedicated branch, an isolated database, synthetic user accounts, staging deployment access, and relevant logs. Credentials should be scoped to the minimum required permissions.
Before your next customer asks, know where your security stands
Send the stack, approximate API-route count, authentication system, tenant model, AI features, and whether a staging environment exists. I will confirm whether the application fits a focused review, multi-tenant review, or full SaaS + AI security review.
Related security guidance and tools
Last reviewed: August 2026