Comparison
A scanner plus a human beats either one alone.
Automated scanners are fast, cheap and great at catching known patterns. What they cannot do is understand what your app is for, which is exactly what the most serious findings require. The strongest approach is both: a scanner for coverage, a human for the findings that need judgement.
The worst findings look identical to intended behaviour.
A missing access rule and a deliberately public table look exactly the same to a scanner: a table that returns data to the public key. Only someone who knows your app can tell which is a breach and which is a feature. That is the ceiling every automated tool hits, and it is precisely where the most damaging findings live, so a scanner alone leaves them on the table.
What scanners are genuinely good at
Automated scanners are excellent at breadth and at known patterns: out-of-date dependencies with published vulnerabilities, missing security headers, obviously exposed keys, common misconfigurations. They run in minutes, cost little, and catch the things that are the same across every app. For a first pass, a good scanner is well worth running, and our own free scanner exists for exactly that.
If a scanner flags something, fix it. The point is not that scanners are useless, it is that a clean scanner report is not the same as a secure app.
Where they stop
A scanner cannot know that this table should be private and that one is meant to be public. It cannot follow your payment flow and notice that a quota check trusts a value from the client. It cannot tell that an endpoint returning any user's record by ID is a breach rather than an intended lookup. These are the highest-impact findings, and every one of them needs an understanding of intent that no automated tool has.
This is why apps pass a scan and still get breached. The scanner checked what it could check, reported clean, and the missing access rule, invisible to it, was still there.
Why both is the right answer
Run a scanner for coverage and speed, then bring in a human for the findings that need judgement. The scanner clears the known patterns cheaply, so the human time goes where it is worth most: tracing the flows that matter, testing access control across accounts, and telling a real breach from an intended feature. Together they cover both the broad, mechanical checks and the deep, contextual ones.
That is how we work. A free automated scan is a sensible first step, and the audit is the human layer on top, the one that catches what the scanner structurally cannot.
Common questions.
- If I run a scanner, do I still need an audit?
- A scanner and an audit catch different things. The scanner clears known patterns; the audit catches the access-control and logic flaws that need to understand your app, which are the most damaging. A clean scan is a good start, not a clean bill of health.
- Do you use scanners at all?
- Yes. We run automated passes for coverage, including our own free scanner, then spend the human time where judgement is required. Using both is the whole point.
- Where should I start?
- Run the free scan first for a quick read, then book the audit for the findings a scanner cannot reach. Many clients do exactly that.
Related services.
Let's build something real.
Tell us about your app or idea. You'll get a clear plan and a fixed quote back within 24 hours.