SCORCHPAD
Pricing
New paste

Security Audit Log

Transparent history of every code review.

ScorchPad maintains a public audit log of all security reviews conducted on the codebase. Each entry records who reviewed the code, the date, the method, every finding, and the current status of each issue. All reviews are performed against the open source repository at github.com/scorchpad/scorchpad.

What this log covers

An entry appears here for every structured review of the ScorchPad source: AI-assisted static analysis, community contributions from external researchers, and (when commissioned) reports from independent security firms. Each entry includes the auditor identity, scope, all findings regardless of severity, and resolution status.

An AI-assisted review is a meaningful signal about implementation correctness, particularly for code that wraps well-specified primitives like the Web Crypto API. It differs from adversarial testing and dynamic analysis by a human auditor. Both facts are stated plainly. See the Security page at /security for the responsible disclosure policy and contact details.

Audit Overview

DateMay 2026
AuditorsTwo independent Claude (Anthropic) AI instances (separate accounts)
MethodWhite-box static code analysis on the full open source repository
ScopeFrontend, API routes, cryptographic layer, rate limiting, webhook handlers, CI pipeline, client-side rendering
Total findings23
Pre-deployment status20 fixed, 3 accepted/noted before public launch
1 Patch Bug1 Critical3 High5 Medium9 Low4 Info

This audit was conducted by two independent Claude (Anthropic) AI instances operating on separate accounts, each reviewing the full source codebase without prior knowledge of the other's findings. Auditor 2 reviewed Auditor 1's proposed patches as a second pass, which is how PATCH-1 (a bug introduced in Auditor 1's own fix) was caught before deployment. All findings were resolved by the developer before public launch.

Findings (23) - click any row to expand

Verified Clean (both auditors agree)

  • AES-256-GCM implementation: correct key generation, 12-byte IV, AEAD guarantees
  • PBKDF2 key derivation at 310,000 iterations using SHA-256: correct
  • timingSafeEqual usage on proof comparison: correct (no timing side-channel)
  • Lua view-burn script atomicity: correct (race-condition-proof single operation)
  • Nonce-based CSP with unsafe-inline removed: correctly implemented
  • HMAC-SHA256 IP hashing: prevents IPv4 space brute-force, correct
  • Clerk JWT tier derivation with strict boolean checks: correct
  • Account deletion ordering (provider cancellation then Postgres then Clerk): correct
  • Sentry fragment scrubber for request.url and breadcrumb URLs using v8 API: correct
  • Zero-knowledge crypto chain: decryption key never reaches the server (confirmed)

Future audits will appear here

Security Audit Log | ScorchPad