[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-572234-105":53,"doc-detail-572234-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","secure-code-reviews-increasing-your-code-review-superpower","Secure Code Reviews - Increasing your Code Review Superpower","","A practical guide to conducting secure code reviews with emphasis on finding the most valuable issues. It contrasts high-quality feedback (functional defects, missing edge cases, API usage, best practices) with acceptable and no-go feedback categories. The guide outlines what to assess during reviews—correctness, security and data privacy, readability, elegance, and inspiration—and explains that code reviews cover more than bugs, including motivation, planning, and future impact. It also provides a checklist and points to OWASP and MITRE vulnerability sources.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":11,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/secure-code-reviews-increasing-your-code-review-superpower/572234/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/secure-code-reviews-increasing-your-code-review-superpower/572234.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"4398046744996","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-10-13",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What makes code review feedback “best” versus “OK” or “no-go”?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"“Best” feedback focuses on functional defects, missing corner cases or validation, proper API usage, and best practices. “OK” feedback covers documentation, coding style and conventions, and spelling mistakes. “No-go” feedback includes alternatives without benefits and existing tech debt or refactoring plans.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"During a code review, what should engineers check for correctness, security, readability, and more?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The guide recommends checking whether the code is correct and handles edge cases and testing, whether it is secure by identifying vulnerabilities and ensuring safe handling of data and inputs, whether it is readable and maps business requirements clearly, and whether it is elegant and inspiring through patterns, simplicity, and positive improvements to the codebase.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How can teams ensure they find important security issues during code reviews?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"They should know common security vulnerabilities and use established references such as OWASP Top 10 and OWASP Code Review Guide, as well as MITRE CWE categories. The document also provides a code review checklist and includes topics like authorization/authentication, input validation and escaping, sensitive data handling, and secure encryption.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},572234,1792382299,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":60,"doc_module":9,"category_id":8,"category_name":11,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":129,"file_id":130,"file_url":131,"file_type":132,"file_size":133,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":134,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":140},4398046744996,"Secure Code Reviews  \nDr. Michaela Greiler  \nIncreasing your Code Review Superpower  \nMore information [at](at michaelagreiler.com)[ michaelagreiler.com](at michaelagreiler.com)[ ](at michaelagreiler.com) [hi@michaelagreiler.com](hi@michaelagreiler.com)  \n@mgreiler  \n1  \nMany companies invest in Code Reviews  \n2  \n Motivations for Code Reviews @Microsoft  \n3  \n4  \nNot all code review feedback is equal!  \nSource: Characteristics of useful code reviews: an empirical study at Microsoft, Bosu, Greiler, Bird  \n5  \nCode Review Feedback  \nBest:  \nFunctional defects, missing corner cases or validation, Api usage, best practices  \nOK:  \nDocumentation, coding style & conventions, spelling mistakes  \nNo-go:  \nAlternatives without benefits, existing tech debt and refactoring, planning and future work  \n6  \nWhat to focus on during code reviews  \n• Is the Code Correct?  \nDoes the code do what it's supposed to? Does it handle edge cases? Is it adequately tested to make sure that it stays correct even when other engineers modify it? Is it performant enough for this use case?  \n• Is the Code Secure?  \nDoes the code have vulnerabilities? Is the data stored safely? Is personal identification information (PII) handled correctly? Could the code be used to induce a DOS? Is input validation comprehensive enough?  \n• Is the Code Readable?  \nIs the code easy to read and comprehend? Does it make clear what the business requirements are (code is written to be read by a human, not by a computer)? Are tests concise enough? Are variables, functions and classes named appropriately? Do the domain models cleanly map the real world to reduce cognitive load? Does it use consistent coding convention?  \n• Is the Code Elegant?  \nDoes the code leverage well-known patterns? Does it achieve what it needs to do without sacrificing simplicity and conciseness? Would you be excited to work in this code? Would you be proud of this code?  \n• Is the Code Inspiring?  \nDoes the code leave the codebase better than what it was? Does it inspire other engineers to improve their code as well? Is it cleaning up unused code, improving documentation, introducing better patterns through small-scale refactoring?  \n[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2wau2x/maslows_pyramid_of_code_review/](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2wau2x/maslows_pyramid_of_code_review/)  \n7  \nCode Reviews Are Not Only About Bugs  \n15% of the comments are about defects  \n8  \nWhat are code reviews about?  \nSources:  \n• Bosu, Greiler, Bird: Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft 2015  \n• Mäntylä and Lassenius. What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews? 2009  \n9  \nSource: OWASP Code Review Guide 2.0  \n10  \nCode Reviews are so much more  \n11  \n12  \nMain Pain Points  \nSlow Turn-Around Time  \n13  \n14  \nHow do we make sure we find important issues?  \n15  \nKnow common security vulnerabilities  \n• OWASP Top 10 – Web app centric: [https://owasp.org/www](https://owasp.org/www)project-top-ten/  \n• Injection  \n• Broken Authentication  \n• Sensitive Data Exposure  \n• XML External Entities (XXE)  \n• Broken Access Control  \n• Security Misconfiguration  \n• Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)  \n• Insecure Deserialization  \n• Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities  \n• Insufficient Logging & Monitoring  \n• Code review guide: [https://owasp.org/www-pdf](https://owasp.org/www-pdf)  \narchive/OWASP Code Review Guide v2 . pdf  \n• Common Weaknesses by MITRE: [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/](http://cwe.mitre.org/data/)  \n• 40 categories comprising 418 weaknesses  \n• Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses  \n16  \nSource: OWASP Code Review Guide 2.0  \n17  \nUse a Code  \nReview Checklist  \n[https://github.com/mgreiler/secure-code-review-checklist](https://github.com/mgreiler/secure-code-review-checklist)  \n18  \nSecurity and Data Privacy  \n\n| What security vulnerabilities is this code susceptible to? |\n| --- |\n| Are authorization and authentication handled in the right way? |\n|","cbCaifVIqmaZpRlV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifVIqmaZpRlV","pdf",1965889,25,"English","# Secure Code Reviews\n## Increasing your Code Review Superpower\n## Code Review Feedback: Best, OK, No-go\n## What to Focus on During Code Reviews\n## Code Reviews Are Not Only About Bugs\n## What Are Code Reviews About?\n## Main Pain Points\n## How to Find Important Issues\n## Use a Code Review Checklist\n## Security and Data Privacy","[{\"question\":\"What makes code review feedback “best” versus “OK” or “no-go”?\",\"answer\":\"“Best” feedback focuses on functional defects, missing corner cases or validation, proper API usage, and best practices. “OK” feedback covers documentation, coding style and conventions, and spelling mistakes. “No-go” feedback includes alternatives without benefits and existing tech debt or refactoring plans.\"},{\"question\":\"During a code review, what should engineers check for correctness, security, readability, and more?\",\"answer\":\"The guide recommends checking whether the code is correct and handles edge cases and testing, whether it is secure by identifying vulnerabilities and ensuring safe handling of data and inputs, whether it is readable and maps business requirements clearly, and whether it is elegant and inspiring through patterns, simplicity, and positive improvements to the codebase.\"},{\"question\":\"How can teams ensure they find important security issues during code reviews?\",\"answer\":\"They should know common security vulnerabilities and use established references such as OWASP Top 10 and OWASP Code Review Guide, as well as MITRE CWE categories. The document also provides a code review checklist and includes topics like authorization/authentication, input validation and escaping, sensitive data handling, and secure encryption.\"}]","Secure Code Reviews - Increasing your Code Review Superpower | PDF",1791926289,9]