AI Secure Code Checker
Check your code against security best practices instantly
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.
How do you know the fix you just wrote did not introduce a new problem? Security fixes are written quickly, often by someone who has been staring at the same file for an hour, and reviewed by a colleague who trusts them. That combination is exactly how a patched injection becomes an escaping bug.
Short answer: AI Secure Code Checker reviews code you are about to ship against secure coding practice, confirming what is handled correctly and pointing out where a change has weakened something.
What is AI Secure Code Checker?
It is a free page that acts as a review gate rather than a hunt. You paste the code you intend to commit, say what it does, and it checks the specific things that go wrong: how input is validated, how output is escaped, how identity and permission are established, how errors are handled, and how secrets are reached.
The difference from a broad scan is intent. A scan looks across a file for anything alarming. A check works through a list of practices against the code in front of it, which is what you want when the change is small and the consequences are not.
Checklist output
Set Output to Checklist and you get a pass or fail list your team can run on every change.
Corrected code shown
Show Secure Code returns the rewritten version, so the fix is concrete rather than described.
Strictness you control
The slider decides whether you get only real problems or every defensive improvement available.
Category labels
Map to OWASP tags each point, which makes a review comment easier to justify.
Focused passes
Security Focus narrows the check to secrets, cryptography or authorisation when that is the change.
Why Use AI Secure Code Checker?
Because the last mile is where security work gets undone. The vulnerability is identified, the fix is written, and then the fix parameterises the query but leaves the ORDER BY concatenated. Or it escapes the output but only on the path that was reported. The original finding closes and the class of problem survives.
A check before commit catches that. It also confirms the things you did right, which sounds like flattery and is actually useful, because a reviewer reading "input is validated at the boundary and the query is parameterised" can spend their attention on the logic instead.
What works well
- Works through practices systematically instead of scanning for alarms.
- Confirms what is correct, which shortens human review.
- Returns the corrected code when a description would not be enough.
- Free, so running it on every meaningful diff is realistic.
What to watch for
- A diff without context can look wrong when the surrounding code is fine.
- High strictness produces suggestions that are defensible rather than necessary.
- It cannot verify that a framework protection is active on this route.
- Passing a check is not evidence of security, only of the absence of known patterns.
Who Should Use It?
- Developers about to commit a change that touches input, identity or data access.
- Reviewers who want a structured second opinion before approving.
- Teams introducing a secure coding standard and needing something enforceable.
- Anyone fixing a reported vulnerability who wants to confirm the fix is complete.
- People new to a language who do not yet know its particular sharp edges.
How Does AI Secure Code Checker Work?
You paste the code and it works down the practices that apply. What you paste decides how much it can say. A diff alone shows the change but not what surrounds it, so the useful paste is the changed function plus the code that calls it.
| Practice checked | What it looks for |
|---|---|
| Input handling | Validation at the boundary, and whether an allow list was possible |
| Output handling | Escaping matched to the context the value lands in |
| Identity and permission | Whether ownership is checked, not just whether a session exists |
| Secrets and configuration | Values read from configuration rather than written in the file |
| Error handling | Whether failures leak internal detail to the caller |
Step-by-Step Guide
- Open AI Secure Code Checker. Free, with no account step.
- Paste the changed code together with its caller, after removing any real secrets.
- Say what the code does and which values arrive from outside your system.
- Name the framework, since its protections change what counts as a problem.
- Choose a model. MSB AI, OpenAI ChatGPT, Google Gemini and others are on the selector.
- Set Output to Checklist for a review gate, or Findings + Fixes when you expect problems.
- Generate, then apply the fixes and run the check once more on the result.
Tip Run the check twice: once before your fix and once after. Comparing the two lists is the clearest way to confirm you closed the issue without opening a different one.
Best Use Cases
| Change | Focus setting | What to watch in the result |
|---|---|---|
| New form handler | Injection or XSS | Whether escaping matches where the value is rendered |
| Fixing a reported vulnerability | The category of the original finding | Whether the whole class is closed, not just one line |
| Adding an integration | Secrets | Where the credential is read from and whether it is logged |
| Touching login or sessions | Authentication | Comparison methods, expiry and what happens on failure |
When the check says the safest fix is a restructure rather than a patch, AI Code Refactor Tool is the better page for doing that properly.
Advanced Options Guide
Ten controls sit behind the accordion, and for a review gate the Output and Strictness settings do the most work.
| Option | What it controls | When to change it | Suggested starting point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language | Auto Detect, Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, C#, C++, Go, PHP or Ruby. | Set it explicitly, since a diff gives detection little to work with. | Your language. |
| Security Focus | General, Injection, Authentication, Authorization, XSS, Secrets, Dependencies or Cryptography. | Match it to what the change actually touches. | General for a broad diff, focused for a targeted fix. |
| Severity Filter | All, Critical Only, High & Above or Medium & Above. | Use All on a pre commit check, since minor points are cheap to fix now. | All. |
| Output | Findings + Fixes, Secure Code, Report or Checklist. | Checklist for a gate, Secure Code when you want the rewrite. | Checklist. |
| Explain the Risk | Adds why each point matters. | When the reviewer is learning rather than confirming. | On. |
| Suggest a Fix | Adds the recommended change for each point. | Any check where you intend to act immediately. | On. |
| Show Secure Code | Returns the corrected version of the pasted code. | When the fix touches several lines and prose would be ambiguous. | On. |
| Map to OWASP | Tags each point with its category. | When the result becomes a review comment or a ticket. | On. |
| Strictness | Slider from 1 to 100 for how demanding the check is. | Low to see only real problems, high for a defensive review. | Middle for daily use, high before a release. |
| Custom Instructions | Free text up to 1000 characters for your standards. | Framework in use, house rules, patterns you have banned. | A concrete line such as "Django with the ORM, templates autoescape, never build raw SQL". |
Example Inputs
Here is a paste with enough around it to be checked properly rather than guessed at.
Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLAlchemy ORM. This is a fix for a reported injection
issue in the export endpoint. The date range comes from query parameters and
the format comes from a dropdown on the page. Check whether the fix is complete
and whether anything else here needs attention.
@router.get("/export")
def export(user=Depends(current_user), start: str = "", end: str = "",
fmt: str = "csv"):
rows = db.execute(
text("SELECT * FROM orders WHERE created_at BETWEEN :s AND :e"),
{"s": start, "e": end}
).fetchall()
filename = f"export-{fmt}"
return FileResponse(f"/tmp/{filename}", filename=filename)
The parameterised query is the fix and it is correct. What a check catches is the rest: the query has no account filter, so any signed in user exports every order. The format value flows into a file path unvalidated. And the start and end values are accepted as strings without being parsed as dates. The reported issue is closed and three things around it are not.
Important A pre commit check is one layer. It does not replace dependency scanning, secrets detection in your pipeline, or a periodic review by someone whose job is security. Treat it as the cheapest layer, not the only one.
Tips & Common Mistakes
- ✅ Paste the changed code with its caller, not the diff alone.
- ✅ Name the framework so its protections are taken into account.
- ✅ Say which values come from outside the system.
- ✅ Run the check again after applying the fixes.
- ✅ Keep strictness high on anything touching money, identity or personal data.
- ✅ Turn recurring findings into a lint rule so the check stops finding them.
The mistakes are predictable. Checking only the lines you changed, which misses the access control that was never there. Accepting every high strictness suggestion, which buries the real issues in defensive noise. Assuming a framework escapes automatically on a path where you bypassed it. And using the checker as a gate without ever converting a repeated finding into an automated rule, so the same point is raised forever.
Pro tip Ask for the checklist version once, then keep it. A short, specific list drawn from your own codebase is more useful to a team than a generic secure coding guide nobody opens.
AIToolsay gives each job a page that already knows what it is looking at, so this prompt box expects code and the options are the ones a security review actually needs. The strictness dial decides whether you get only real problems or a defensive read, the output setting turns the same analysis into a checklist, a report or corrected code, and the model selector lets a second engine check the same diff when a point looks arguable. It is free with no account step, which is what makes running it on every change practical. Session history keeps the before and after passes under the result so you can compare them. The rest of the development tooling on AIToolsay follows the same shape, so the scan that found the issue and the refactor that fixes it properly are each a page away.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is AI Secure Code Checker free?
Yes, with no account and no limit on how many checks you run.
Should I paste a diff or the whole file?
The changed function plus whatever calls it. A diff shows what moved but not where the values came from, and provenance is what most checks depend on.
How is this different from a security scanner?
A scanner hunts across code for patterns. This works through a list of practices against the code in front of it, which suits a pre commit gate better than a broad audit.
What strictness should I use?
Middle for everyday changes. Push it up before a release or on anything touching authentication and payments, and accept that some suggestions will be optional hardening.
Can it produce a standard for my team?
Set Output to Checklist and keep the result. A list generated from your own code is far more likely to be used than a generic guide.
Does passing the check mean the code is secure?
No. It means the known patterns were not found in what you pasted. Logic flaws, configuration mistakes and dependency issues all sit outside what this can see.
Run it on the next change you make to anything that handles user input, and paste the caller as well as the function. The extra ten lines of context are usually where the interesting finding is. The Telegram community is a reasonable place to compare review checklists, and the newsletter or push notifications will let you know when new security tools land here.
Let AI Speak.