Why Sentrint exists

The problem we kept seeing

Someone describes an app. A tool writes it. It runs. That is a genuine breakthrough, and it is why so many people who could never ship software before are shipping it now. But there is a gap in the middle that nobody warns you about. The tool was built to make the app work. It was not built to make the app safe. Those are two different jobs, and only one of them gets done by default.

When you look at enough of these apps, the same handful of holes show up again and again. A database left open so anyone can read every user's rows. A live payment or API key sitting in the code where a browser can see it. An admin page with no login on it. Permissions turned off because turning them on made an error go away during the build. None of these are exotic. They are the boring, common mistakes that get apps broken into, and they are exactly the mistakes a tool optimizing for "it runs" will leave behind.

Why the AI builder can't catch it

The person shipping the app usually cannot see the problem, and that is not a failing on their part. You asked for a feature, not for a lecture on row-level security. You cannot read every line the tool wrote, and even if you could, the dangerous part is often what is missing rather than what is there. A missing auth check does not throw an error. An open database does not crash. The app looks finished because, to the user, it is finished. The hole only becomes visible when someone goes looking for it, and by then it is usually a stranger.

Traditional security tools do not help here either. They are built for security engineers. They speak in CVE numbers and CWE categories, they assume you know what a finding means and what to do about it, and they produce hundreds of results you have to triage yourself. Hand that to someone who built their first app last month and it is worse than useless. It is intimidating enough that they close the tab and ship anyway.

The mission

Sentrint exists to close that gap for the person who is not a security expert and should not have to become one.

That means three commitments. First, an honest read. We tell you what is actually exposed in your app, not a generic checklist of things that might theoretically matter. Second, plain language. A finding says what the problem is, why it matters, and what happens if you ignore it, without jargon and without assuming a security background. Third, a way to act. On a paid scan, every finding comes with a fix prompt written for the same tool that built the app, delivered one small step at a time, so you can fix the problem without reading the code.

The point is not to make you feel secure. It is to make you actually safer, fast, in language you can do something with. A scan gives you a score, a letter grade, and findings sorted so the thing most likely to get you breached is at the top. Every month you get one free scan that shows you all of it, with nothing held back. When you want the fix prompts as well, a scan pack covers it.

What we are not

We are not a compliance badge and we do not pretend to be a big team. One developer builds this. The upside of that is that the person who wrote the rules is the same person who answers your support email, and the rules are strict on purpose. We do not store your code. We do not train on it. We read the repo you pick, inside a sealed job, and the code is gone when the scan ends. Your code and your data covers exactly what that means.

If you want the specifics of what tends to break in AI-built apps, Security for AI-built apps walks through it. For the full list of what the engine checks, see Common vulnerabilities.

See it on your own app

The fastest way to understand any of this is to run it. Sign in with GitHub and scan a repo free, one a month, no card: start a scan.