CodeSlick Security Capability Matrix¶
Date: 2025-10-20 Purpose: Strategic evaluation of current security detection vs market requirements
Executive Summary¶
CodeSlick currently implements 54 security checks (updated from 52 in SECURITY_AUDIT.md) across 4 languages with CVSS-based severity scoring already implemented. This document validates capabilities against strategic requirements and identifies expansion opportunities.
Current State Highlights¶
- Severity Scoring: ✅ CVSS-like 4-tier system (CRITICAL 9-10, HIGH 7-8.9, MEDIUM 4-6.9, LOW 1-3.9)
- Attack Vectors: ✅ Detailed explanations with exploit examples
- Compliance Mapping: ✅ OWASP Top 10 2021 (88% coverage), CWE references, PCI-DSS requirements
- Auto-Fix: ✅ Hybrid system (pattern-based + AI-powered per-issue fixes)
Strategic Requirements Validation¶
Your Checklist vs CodeSlick Reality¶
| Requirement | CodeSlick Status | Coverage | Gap Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication/Authorization flaws | ❌ Partial | 5% | Only hardcoded credentials detected |
| Cryptographic issues | ✅ Good | 65% | Weak algorithms (MD5, SHA1, ECB), weak random, NO key storage checks |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | ❌ Missing | 0% | Not implemented - major gap |
| API security | ❌ Missing | 0% | No rate limiting, exposed endpoints, or API key checks |
| Input validation gaps | ✅ Good | 70% | SQL injection, XSS, command injection covered |
| Path traversal | ✅ Excellent | 100% | All languages (JS/TS, Python, Java) |
| Command injection | ✅ Excellent | 100% | All languages with multiple patterns |
| XXE attacks | ✅ Good | 50% | Java only, missing Python/JS XML parsers |
| SSRF | ❌ Missing | 0% | Not implemented - critical gap |
| IDOR | ❌ Missing | 0% | Not implemented - requires data flow analysis |
Current Detection Capabilities (Exhaustive List)¶
JavaScript/TypeScript (17 checks)¶
OWASP A03:2021 - Injection (6 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | eval() usage | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | /\beval\s*\(/ |
| 2 | Function constructor | CRITICAL | 9.5 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | new Function( |
| 3 | SQL Injection | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-89 | 6.5.1 | String concat in queries |
| 4 | Command Injection | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-78 | 6.5.1 | child_process.exec() with variables |
| 5 | Path Traversal | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-22 | 6.5.8 | ../ in file operations |
| 6 | setTimeout/setInterval strings | MEDIUM | 6.5 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | setTimeout("code", ms) |
OWASP A03:2021 - XSS (4 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | innerHTML with variables | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-79 | 6.5.7 | innerHTML = userContent |
| 8 | outerHTML with variables | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-79 | 6.5.7 | outerHTML = html |
| 9 | document.write | HIGH | 7.0 | CWE-79 | 6.5.7 | document.write() with variables |
| 10 | dangerouslySetInnerHTML | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-79 | 6.5.7 | React's unsafe HTML rendering |
OWASP A07:2021 - Authentication Failures (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Hardcoded credentials | CRITICAL | 9.0 | CWE-798 | 8.2.1 | password = "hardcoded123" |
OWASP A02:2021 - Cryptographic Failures (2 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Math.random() for security | MEDIUM | 5.5 | CWE-330 | 6.5.8 | Math.random() |
| 13 | localStorage for sensitive data | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-312 | 3.4 | localStorage.setItem('pwd') |
OWASP A08:2021 - Software/Data Integrity Failures (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Prototype pollution | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-1321 | - | Object.prototype or __proto__ |
Additional Security Checks (3 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Regex DoS (ReDoS) | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-1333 | - | /(.*)*$/ nested quantifiers |
| 16 | Missing error handling | LOW | 3.0 | CWE-755 | - | fetch() without .catch() |
| 17 | console.log in production | LOW | 2.0 | CWE-532 | - | console.log() |
Python (19 checks - updated from 17)¶
OWASP A03:2021 - Injection (7 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | eval() usage | CRITICAL | 10.0 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | eval(user_input) |
| 2 | exec() usage | CRITICAL | 10.0 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | exec(code_string) |
| 3 | compile() usage | HIGH | 8.5 | CWE-95 | 6.5.1 | compile(source) |
| 4 | SQL Injection (% formatting) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-89 | 6.5.1 | execute("... %s" % var) |
| 5 | SQL Injection (f-strings) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-89 | 6.5.1 | execute(f"SELECT {id}") |
| 6 | Command Injection (os.system) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-78 | 6.5.1 | os.system(f"ls {path}") |
| 7 | Command Injection (subprocess) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-78 | 6.5.1 | subprocess.run(cmd, shell=True) |
OWASP A08:2021 - Insecure Deserialization (2 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | pickle.load() | HIGH | 8.5 | CWE-502 | - | pickle.load(untrusted) |
| 9 | yaml.load() without SafeLoader | HIGH | 8.5 | CWE-502 | - | yaml.load() missing SafeLoader |
OWASP A07:2021 - Authentication Failures (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Hardcoded credentials | CRITICAL | 9.0 | CWE-798 | 8.2.1 | password = "hardcoded123" |
OWASP A02:2021 - Cryptographic Failures (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | random module for security | MEDIUM | 5.5 | CWE-330 | 6.5.8 | random.randint() for tokens |
OWASP A01:2021 - Broken Access Control (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Path Traversal | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-22 | 6.5.8 | open(user_path + '../') |
OWASP A03:2021 - XSS (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | HTML rendering without escape | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-79 | 6.5.7 | render('<div>' + input) |
Additional Security Checks (6 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | assert for security validation | MEDIUM | 6.0 | CWE-617 | - | assert user.is_admin (bypassed with -O) |
| 15 | input() without validation | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-20 | - | input() without type conversion |
| 16 | Regex DoS | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-1333 | - | re.compile(r'(a+)*$') |
| 17 | Empty except blocks | LOW | 3.0 | CWE-391 | - | except: pass |
| 18 | print() in production | LOW | 2.0 | CWE-532 | - | print() can leak secrets |
| 19 | tempfile.mktemp() race condition | MEDIUM | 6.5 | CWE-377 | - | tempfile.mktemp() |
| 20 | import() dynamic loading | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-470 | - | __import__(user_module) |
Java (18 checks)¶
OWASP A03:2021 - Injection (5 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SQL Injection | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-89 | 6.5.1 | executeQuery("... " + userId) |
| 2 | Command Injection (Runtime.exec) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-78 | 6.5.1 | Runtime.exec("ls " + input) |
| 3 | Command Injection (ProcessBuilder) | CRITICAL | 9.8 | CWE-78 | 6.5.1 | ProcessBuilder with concat |
| 4 | LDAP Injection | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-90 | 6.5.1 | InitialDirContext with concat |
| 5 | XPath Injection | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-643 | 6.5.1 | xpath.evaluate() with concat |
OWASP A08:2021 - Insecure Deserialization (2 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | ObjectInputStream deserialization | HIGH | 8.5 | CWE-502 | - | new ObjectInputStream(untrusted) |
| 7 | XXE (XML External Entity) | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-611 | - | DocumentBuilderFactory unsecured |
OWASP A07:2021 - Authentication Failures (1 check)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Hardcoded credentials | CRITICAL | 9.0 | CWE-798 | 8.2.1 | String password = "hardcoded" |
OWASP A02:2021 - Cryptographic Failures (4 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Random() for security | MEDIUM | 5.5 | CWE-330 | 6.5.8 | new Random() for tokens |
| 10 | MD5 hashing | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-328 | - | MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5") |
| 11 | SHA1 hashing | MEDIUM | 5.0 | CWE-328 | - | MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-1") |
| 12 | ECB mode encryption | MEDIUM | 6.0 | CWE-327 | 6.5.3 | Cipher.getInstance("AES/ECB") |
OWASP A01:2021 - Broken Access Control (3 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Path Traversal | HIGH | 7.5 | CWE-22 | 6.5.8 | new File(userPath + name) |
| 14 | File upload without validation | HIGH | 7.0 | CWE-434 | - | .upload() without extension check |
| 15 | Unsafe reflection | HIGH | 8.0 | CWE-470 | - | Class.forName(userClassName) |
Additional Security Checks (3 checks)¶
| # | Vulnerability | Severity | CVSS | CWE | PCI-DSS | Detection Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Unhandled NullPointerException | LOW | 3.0 | CWE-476 | - | Missing null checks |
| 17 | System.out.println | LOW | 2.0 | CWE-532 | - | Can leak sensitive data |
| 18 | printStackTrace() | LOW | 2.5 | CWE-209 | - | Exposes stack traces |
Security-Specific Features (Your Requirements vs Reality)¶
1. Severity Scoring (CVSS-like) ✅ IMPLEMENTED¶
Your Requirement: - Critical (9-10): Immediate fix required - High (7-8): Fix before deploy - Medium (4-6): Fix soon - Low (1-3): Consider fixing
CodeSlick Implementation:
// src/lib/security/severity-scoring.ts (ALREADY EXISTS!)
export function calculateSeverityScore(vulnerabilityType: string): {
severity: 'CRITICAL' | 'HIGH' | 'MEDIUM' | 'LOW';
cvssScore: number;
exploitLikelihood: 'HIGH' | 'MEDIUM' | 'LOW';
impact: string[];
}
Examples: - SQL Injection: CRITICAL (9.8), Exploit Likelihood: HIGH, Impact: ["Data breach", "Authentication bypass"] - XSS: HIGH (7.5), Exploit Likelihood: MEDIUM, Impact: ["Session hijacking", "Credential theft"] - Weak random: MEDIUM (5.5), Exploit Likelihood: MEDIUM, Impact: ["Predictable tokens"]
Status: ✅ FULLY IMPLEMENTED - CodeSlick already has CVSS-based 4-tier scoring!
2. Attack Vector Explanation ✅ IMPLEMENTED¶
Your Requirement:
SQL Injection on line 45
OWASP Top 10 2021: A03 - Injection
CWE-89: SQL Injection
PCI-DSS: Requirement 6.5.1
CodeSlick Implementation (ALREADY EXISTS):
// Each vulnerability includes:
attackVector: {
description: "String interpolation in SQL queries allows...",
exploitExample: 'cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}") where user_id = "1 OR 1=1"',
realWorldImpact: [
"Full database access (read/write/delete)",
"Authentication bypass",
"Data exfiltration"
]
}
Example Output (Python SQL Injection):
Line 45: SQL Injection with string interpolation detected
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Severity: CRITICAL (9.8/10)
Exploit Likelihood: HIGH
OWASP: A03:2021 - Injection
CWE: CWE-89 (SQL Injection)
PCI-DSS: Requirement 6.5.1
HOW IT WORKS:
String interpolation or concatenation in SQL queries allows attackers to inject
malicious SQL code, bypassing authentication and accessing the entire database.
EXAMPLE EXPLOIT:
cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
where user_id = "1 OR 1=1" → Returns all users!
REAL-WORLD IMPACT:
• Full database access (read/write/delete)
• Authentication bypass
• Data exfiltration
• Data destruction
• Privilege escalation
REMEDIATION:
❌ BEFORE (vulnerable):
cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
✅ AFTER (secure):
cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?", (user_id,))
# Or: cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s", (user_id,))
Status: ✅ FULLY IMPLEMENTED with detailed attack vectors!
3. Compliance Mapping ✅ IMPLEMENTED¶
Your Requirement: - OWASP Top 10 2021 - CWE references - PCI-DSS requirements
CodeSlick Implementation (ALREADY EXISTS):
// src/lib/security/compliance-mapping.ts
export function getComplianceMapping(vulnerabilityType: string): {
owasp: string;
cwe: string;
pciDss: string;
}
// Example mappings:
'sql-injection': {
owasp: 'A03:2021 - Injection',
cwe: 'CWE-89',
pciDss: 'Requirement 6.5.1'
}
Coverage: - OWASP Top 10 2021: 8/9 applicable categories (88%) - CWE References: All 54 checks mapped - PCI-DSS: Requirements 6.5.1, 6.5.7, 6.5.8, 8.2.1 covered
Status: ✅ FULLY IMPLEMENTED
4. Security-Focused Auto-Fix ✅ IMPLEMENTED (Hybrid System)¶
Your Requirement: - Parameterized queries for SQL injection - Input sanitization for XSS - Replace hardcoded secrets with environment variables - Add CSRF tokens
CodeSlick Implementation:
Pattern-Based "Fix All" (src/lib/utils/pattern-fixer.ts):
- Speed: <100ms (instant)
- Reliability: 100% (deterministic)
- Cost: Zero (no AI)
- Fixes: Syntax errors (missing semicolons, brackets, quotes)
AI-Powered "Generate Fix" (/api/generate-fix):
- Speed: 5-10 seconds per fix
- Intelligence: Context-aware, understands security context
- Supports:
- ✅ SQL injection → Parameterized queries
- ✅ XSS → HTML escaping
- ✅ Hardcoded secrets → Environment variables
- ❌ CSRF tokens (not yet implemented)
Remediation Examples (ALREADY IN CODE):
remediation: {
before: 'cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")',
after: 'cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?", (user_id,))',
explanation: 'Always use parameterized queries where user input is passed as separate parameters'
}
Status: ✅ HYBRID SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED - Pattern-based + AI-powered fixes per issue
Critical Gaps Analysis¶
❌ Missing Capabilities (Your Checklist)¶
1. Authentication/Authorization Flaws (HIGH PRIORITY)¶
Current Coverage: 5% (only hardcoded credentials)
Missing Checks: - JWT validation (weak secrets, no expiration, algorithm: "none") - OAuth flow vulnerabilities (open redirects, state parameter missing) - Session management issues (no timeout, session fixation) - CSRF token validation (Express, Flask, Spring) - Authentication bypass patterns (always-true conditionals) - IDOR (Insecure Direct Object References) - Requires data flow analysis
Example Missing Detection:
// Should flag: No authentication check before accessing user data
app.get('/api/users/:id', (req, res) => {
const user = getUserById(req.params.id); // IDOR vulnerability!
res.json(user);
});
Impact: Cannot detect authorization flaws that lead to privilege escalation.
2. Cryptographic Issues - Key Storage (MEDIUM PRIORITY)¶
Current Coverage: 65% (weak algorithms detected, key storage missing)
Implemented: - ✅ Weak random (Math.random, random.randint, new Random()) - ✅ Weak hashing (MD5, SHA-1) - ✅ Weak encryption (ECB mode)
Missing Checks: - Hardcoded encryption keys (beyond credentials) - Insufficient key length (<2048 bits RSA, <256 bits AES) - Missing certificate validation (SSL/TLS bypass) - Weak cipher suites (DES, 3DES, RC4) - Insecure SSL/TLS configuration
Example Missing Detection:
# Should flag: Hardcoded encryption key
from cryptography.fernet import Fernet
key = b'hardcoded_32_byte_encryption_key' # CRITICAL!
cipher = Fernet(key)
Impact: Cannot detect key management vulnerabilities.
3. Dependency Vulnerabilities (CRITICAL GAP)¶
Current Coverage: 0%
Missing Checks: - npm package vulnerabilities (CVE database lookup) - pip package vulnerabilities - maven/gradle dependencies - Outdated package versions - Known vulnerable versions
Example Missing Detection:
// package.json - Should flag vulnerable packages
{
"dependencies": {
"lodash": "4.17.19", // CVE-2020-8203 (Prototype Pollution)
"axios": "0.19.0" // Multiple CVEs
}
}
Competitor Advantage: Snyk's entire business model - CRITICAL GAP
Impact: Cannot compete with Snyk without dependency scanning.
4. API Security (HIGH PRIORITY)¶
Current Coverage: 0%
Missing Checks:
- Missing rate limiting (Express, Flask, Spring)
- Exposed sensitive endpoints (no authentication middleware)
- API key exposure in URLs/logs
- CORS misconfiguration (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *)
- Missing security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options)
- GraphQL injection
Example Missing Detection:
// Express - Should flag: No rate limiting
app.post('/api/login', (req, res) => {
// Brute force attack possible - no rate limiting!
authenticateUser(req.body.username, req.body.password);
});
// CORS - Should flag: Allows all origins
app.use(cors({ origin: '*' })); // SECURITY RISK!
Impact: Cannot detect API-specific vulnerabilities common in modern web apps.
5. XXE (XML External Entity) Attacks¶
Current Coverage: 50% (Java only)
Implemented:
- ✅ Java: DocumentBuilderFactory without secure configuration
Missing:
- ❌ Python: xml.etree.ElementTree (vulnerable to XXE)
- ❌ JavaScript: libxmljs, xml2js without secure settings
Example Missing Detection:
# Python - Should flag: XXE vulnerability
import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
tree = ET.parse(user_xml_file) # Vulnerable to XXE!
Impact: Python/JS applications vulnerable to XXE attacks go undetected.
6. SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery) (CRITICAL GAP)¶
Current Coverage: 0%
Missing Checks: - URL validation in HTTP requests (fetch, axios, requests) - Accessing internal IP ranges (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 127.0.0.1) - Cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/)
Example Missing Detection:
// Should flag: SSRF vulnerability
app.get('/fetch-url', async (req, res) => {
const url = req.query.url; // User-controlled URL!
const response = await fetch(url); // Can access internal services!
res.json(await response.json());
});
Impact: Cannot detect SSRF attacks used to access cloud credentials, internal services.
Strategic Recommendations¶
Immediate Priority (Month 1-2): Close Critical Gaps¶
1. Dependency Vulnerability Scanning (HIGHEST PRIORITY)¶
Why: Snyk's core feature - table stakes for security tools Implementation: - Integrate with npm audit, pip-audit, OWASP Dependency-Check - Add CVE database lookup - Show vulnerable package versions with fix recommendations
Effort: 2-3 weeks Impact: Competitive parity with Snyk (basic level)
2. API Security Checks (HIGH PRIORITY)¶
Why: Modern web apps are API-first Implementation: - Rate limiting detection (Express, Flask, Spring) - CORS misconfiguration - Missing security headers - Exposed endpoints without auth
Effort: 1-2 weeks Impact: Differentiation from generic SAST tools
3. SSRF Detection (HIGH PRIORITY)¶
Why: OWASP Top 10 (A10:2021) Implementation: - Detect user-controlled URLs in HTTP requests - Flag internal IP ranges - Cloud metadata endpoint access
Effort: 1 week Impact: Complete OWASP Top 10 coverage (9/9)
Medium Priority (Month 3-4): Authentication & Crypto Enhancements¶
4. Authentication/Authorization Checks¶
- JWT validation (weak secrets, no expiration)
- CSRF token validation
- Session management issues
- OAuth flow vulnerabilities
Effort: 2-3 weeks Impact: Enterprise-grade security coverage
5. Enhanced Cryptographic Checks¶
- Hardcoded encryption keys
- Insufficient key length
- Weak cipher suites
- SSL/TLS misconfigurations
Effort: 1-2 weeks Impact: Cryptographic best practices enforcement
Low Priority (Month 5-6): Advanced Features¶
6. IDOR Detection (Requires Data Flow Analysis)¶
Challenge: Pattern matching insufficient - needs taint tracking Effort: 4-6 weeks (complex feature) Alternative: AI-powered detection with context analysis
Competitive Positioning¶
vs Snyk¶
CodeSlick Strengths: - ✅ Better static analysis (54 checks vs Snyk Code's focus on dependencies) - ✅ CVSS scoring and compliance mapping - ✅ AI-powered auto-fix (Snyk charges extra)
CodeSlick Gaps: - ❌ No dependency scanning (Snyk's core strength) - ❌ No CVE database integration
Strategy: Add dependency scanning to achieve feature parity, compete on price ($49/month vs $99/month)
vs SonarQube¶
CodeSlick Strengths: - ✅ Detailed attack vector explanations (SonarQube gives generic warnings) - ✅ AI-powered fixes (SonarQube has no auto-fix) - ✅ Modern UI/UX (SonarQube is enterprise-heavy)
CodeSlick Gaps: - ❌ No code quality metrics (complexity, duplication) - ❌ No team collaboration features
Strategy: Position as "security-first SonarQube alternative for startups"
vs Checkmarx¶
CodeSlick Strengths: - ✅ Real-time analysis (<5s vs Checkmarx's hours) - ✅ Price ($49-999/month vs $50K-200K/year) - ✅ Self-service (no sales calls)
CodeSlick Gaps: - ❌ No data flow analysis (Checkmarx's strength) - ❌ No custom rule creation
Strategy: Target SMBs with "80% of Checkmarx at 10% of the cost"
Next Steps¶
Week 1-2: Dependency Scanning¶
- Integrate npm audit API
- Add pip-audit integration
- Parse package.json, requirements.txt, pom.xml
- Display vulnerable dependencies with CVE links
Week 3: API Security + SSRF¶
- Add rate limiting checks (Express, Flask, Spring)
- CORS misconfiguration detection
- SSRF pattern detection (user-controlled URLs)
Week 4: Documentation & Marketing¶
- Update landing page: "54+ security checks" → "60+ security checks + dependency scanning"
- Create comparison table vs Snyk/SonarQube
- Case studies with vulnerability examples
Conclusion¶
Current State: CodeSlick has a solid foundation with 54 security checks, CVSS scoring, compliance mapping, and AI-powered fixes.
Critical Gaps: 1. Dependency scanning (0% coverage) - MUST HAVE for market competitiveness 2. API security (0% coverage) - HIGH VALUE for modern web apps 3. SSRF detection (0% coverage) - Completes OWASP Top 10
Strategic Path: - Month 1-2: Add dependency scanning + API security → Feature parity with Snyk Code - Month 3-4: Enhanced auth/crypto checks → Enterprise-grade - Month 5-6: Advanced features (IDOR, data flow) → Premium tier
Competitive Advantage: "Snyk + SonarQube for startups" - security + code quality at 10% of enterprise pricing.