AI API Security Analyzer
Scan APIs for vulnerabilities and security best practices
NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super
Balanced Nemotron for demanding everyday work
NEW
FREE
Your prompt will appear here…
Your beautifully formatted article will appear here once you generate.
No history yet
Your generations will appear here. Sign in to save them permanently.
If someone changed the id in one of your API requests to a record belonging to another customer, what would happen? Are you certain, or fairly confident?
Most API breaches are not clever. They are an endpoint that authenticates the caller and then never checks whether that caller owns the thing they asked for. The AI API Security Analyzer reads your API code and looks for exactly that class of problem.
Short answer: The AI API Security Analyzer is a free AIToolsay tool that reviews API code for security problems. Paste the code, choose a security focus and severity filter, and it reports injection risks, authentication and authorisation gaps, exposed secrets and data leaks, mapped to OWASP categories with fixes.
What is AI API Security Analyzer?
This is a code review with one purpose. Not style, not performance, only whether the code can be made to do something it should not.
The prompt box asks you to paste the code or describe the system to review for security. Paste real handlers, including the middleware around them, because a route is only as safe as the guards in front of it.
Security Focus narrows the review to injection, authentication, authorisation, cross site scripting, secrets, dependencies or cryptography, or leaves it general. Severity Filter decides how much noise you see.
Why Use AI API Security Analyzer?
Security review is a specialist skill applied to code written by generalists under deadline. The gap between those two facts is where most vulnerabilities live.
The most valuable finding is the boring one. Broken object level authorisation, where an endpoint checks who you are and forgets to check what you may touch, is consistently among the most common API vulnerabilities, and it is invisible in a normal review because the code looks complete.
Authorisation gaps
Endpoints that authenticate the caller and never check ownership of the record they asked for.
Injection paths
User input reaching a query, a command or a template without being parameterised or escaped.
Secrets and exposure
Hard coded credentials, tokens in logs and internal fields serialised into responses.
OWASP mapping
Findings tied to a named category, which is what makes them easy to prioritise and to explain.
| Common API weakness | Why normal review misses it | Security Focus to use |
|---|---|---|
| Missing ownership check | The code looks complete and all tests pass | Authorization |
| Input reaching a query | The parameter is not user visible, so it feels internal | Injection |
| Internal fields in responses | The serialiser returns the whole model by default | General |
| Token written to a log | Logging was added long after the auth code | Secrets |
Who Should Use It?
- Backend developers reviewing their own endpoints before release
- Teams without a dedicated security engineer, which is most teams
- Anyone exposing an API publicly for the first time
- Reviewers who want a security pass alongside the normal review
- Developers preparing for an audit who would rather find things first
Note Include your middleware, decorators and guards. An endpoint that looks unprotected may be covered by something applied globally, and an endpoint that looks protected may be relying on a guard that does not check ownership.
How Does AI API Security Analyzer Work?
Prompt box. Open the AI API Security Analyzer and paste the code or describe the system to review for security.
Model selector. Set the engine, from MSB AI, OpenAI ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude AI, xAI Grok AI, DeepSeek, Qwen, Meta AI, NVIDIA AI, OpenRouter AI and MiniMax.
Advanced options accordion. Ten settings sit behind it: Language, Security Focus, Severity Filter and Output as dropdowns, four toggles, a Strictness slider and a free text field.
Generate button. Code, model and settings run through the prompt engineering layer written for security review, which is the instruction set that makes it look for abuse rather than for bugs.
Output card. The findings appear under the button with a live word count, plus copy, listen, reuse, download and open in full view.
Export row. DOC, TXT and HTML. DOC when the findings are going into a remediation plan.
Activity history. Session generations stay listed, so a general pass and a focused pass on one category stay available together.
Step-by-Step Guide
- Pick one set of endpoints and collect their handlers, middleware and guards.
- Redact any real secrets before pasting anything.
- Paste the code and say who the callers are and what data is sensitive.
- Set Language, leave Security Focus on General for the first pass.
- Set Severity Filter to High and Above so the first read is short enough to act on.
- Turn Explain the Risk and Map to OWASP on.
- Generate, then verify each finding against the code yourself before raising it.
- Run focused passes afterwards, one Security Focus at a time, at higher strictness.
| What you are reviewing | Severity Filter | Strictness |
|---|---|---|
| Internal service, trusted callers | High & Above | 55 |
| Public API | Medium & Above | 80 |
| Multi tenant SaaS | Medium & Above | 85 |
| A quick pre release check | Critical Only | 60 |
Advanced Options Guide
| Option | What it controls | When to change it | Suggested start |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language | Auto Detect, Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, C#, C++, Go, PHP or Ruby | Set it. Injection risks and escaping rules are language and library specific | Your language |
| Security Focus | General, Injection, Authentication, Authorization, XSS, Secrets, Dependencies or Cryptography | Run General first, then one focused pass per category that matters | General, then Authorization |
| Severity Filter | All, Critical Only, High & Above or Medium & Above | Start high. A long list of low severity findings buries the real ones | High & Above |
| Output | Findings + Fixes, Secure Code, Report or Checklist | Report when the output is going to someone who did not write the code | Findings + Fixes |
| Explain the Risk | Describes what an attacker could actually do | Leave on. A finding without a consequence gets deprioritised | On |
| Suggest a Fix | Adds the remediation for each finding | Leave on, and still verify the fix suits your codebase | On |
| Show Secure Code | Returns the corrected implementation | Turn on once you agree with a finding, off for a first survey | Off first |
| Map to OWASP | Ties each finding to a named category | Leave on. It makes findings comparable and easier to explain upwards | On |
| Strictness | Slider from 1 to 100 setting how aggressively risk is flagged | Raise it for anything public facing or handling personal data | 70, higher for public APIs |
| Custom Instructions | Free text up to 1000 characters over the settings | Describe your threat model and what protections already exist elsewhere | "Public API, multi tenant, auth handled by a gateway, tenant id comes from the token" |
Important This is one input to a security process, not a substitute for one. It reviews the code you paste and cannot see your infrastructure, your gateway rules or your deployment. Anything handling payments, health data or personal information deserves a professional assessment as well.
Example Inputs
Review these endpoints. Public API, multi tenant SaaS.
Auth is a JWT containing user_id and tenant_id.
Sensitive data: customer records and uploaded documents.
Pasted: the documents controller, the auth middleware,
the storage service it calls, and the query builder used
for the search endpoint.
Already handled elsewhere: rate limiting at the gateway,
TLS termination at the load balancer.Naming what is handled elsewhere is what stops half the findings being about things you already solved. Naming the sensitive data is what makes the rest of them prioritised correctly.
Example Outputs
FINDING 1 [High] Broken object level authorisation
GET /documents/{id} loads the document by id and checks
only that the token is valid. A user from tenant A can
read a document belonging to tenant B by guessing an id.
OWASP: API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
Fix: scope the query by tenant_id from the token rather
than filtering after the fetch.
FINDING 2 [High] Search filter is string concatenated
The sort parameter is interpolated into the query. It is
not user visible, which is not the same as not user
controlled.
...Finding 1 is the one that matters, and notice how ordinary the code was. It authenticates properly, it returns the right shape, and every test passes. The check that is missing is the one nobody wrote a test for, because the test would have needed a second tenant.
Once the findings are triaged, the AI Vulnerability Analyzer goes deeper on individual issues, and the AI Authorization Policy Generator is the right tool for building the ownership checks properly rather than patching each endpoint.
What it finds well
- Missing ownership checks on endpoints that take an id
- Input reaching queries, commands or templates unescaped
- Secrets in code, and tokens written to logs
- Internal fields serialised into public responses
What it cannot see
- Your gateway, firewall and network configuration
- Whether a protection you described actually works
- Vulnerabilities inside dependencies, which need a scanner
- Anything in code you did not paste
- ✅ Handlers, middleware and guards pasted together
- ✅ Real secrets redacted before pasting
- ✅ Threat model and existing protections described
- ✅ Every finding verified against the code before being raised
- ✅ Focused passes run after the general one
Pro tip Write a test for every confirmed finding before you fix it. A test that proves a user from one tenant cannot read another tenant's record is worth more than the fix itself, because it is what stops the same gap reappearing on the next endpoint somebody adds.
AIToolsay is a free AI tools platform built as a set of dedicated workspaces rather than one general chat box wearing many names. Each tool carries its own prompt engineering and its own options panel, which is why a security tool asks about severity and OWASP mapping instead of tone and audience. Every tool is free to run and no account is needed to use one. The engine is yours to pick, from MSB AI, OpenAI ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude AI, xAI Grok AI, DeepSeek, Qwen, Meta AI, NVIDIA AI, OpenRouter AI and MiniMax, and on a security review two engines reading the same code is a genuinely useful second opinion. Beyond the tool suite there is an AI directory, an AI models directory, courses, prompts, guides and news, all reachable from the AIToolsay homepage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the AI API Security Analyzer free?
Yes. It is free to use, nothing is installed, and no account is needed to run a review.
Is this enough on its own?
No. It is a strong extra pair of eyes on the code you paste. It cannot see your infrastructure or your dependencies, and anything handling payments or personal data still deserves a professional assessment.
Should I paste production code?
Follow your organisation's policy, and redact every real secret first. Replace keys and tokens with obvious placeholders so the structure survives without the credential.
Why does it flag things my team decided were fine?
Because it does not know that. Describe your threat model and existing protections in Custom Instructions, and the second pass focuses on what is genuinely unhandled.
What is broken object level authorisation?
An endpoint that confirms who you are but not what you may access. Changing an id in the URL then returns somebody else's data. It is consistently one of the most common API vulnerabilities and one of the easiest to miss.
Does it check my dependencies?
Not for known vulnerabilities, which needs a scanner with a live database. It can flag risky ways you use a library, which is a different and complementary problem.
How high should Strictness be?
Around 70 for internal services and higher for anything public facing or multi tenant. High strictness produces more to triage, and for a public API that is the right trade.
Most API security problems are not sophisticated attacks, they are missing checks in ordinary looking code. Paste the handlers with their middleware, describe what would be damaging to lose, and let the AI API Security Analyzer ask the questions you stopped asking after the second endpoint.
Thanks for reading, and good luck with the review. If this earns a place in how you ship an API, join the AIToolsay community, follow along on social media, turn on push notifications for new tools, and subscribe to the newsletter for the occasional summary.
Let AI Speak.
Sabir
Founder of AIToolsay and a passionate AI enthusiast dedicated to building practical, user-friendly AI tools that simplify everyday tasks.
Can't find the tool you need?
Tell us what you need and we will build it. New tools ship every week.
Request a Tool