SQL injection prevention audit
We check the code for SQL injection vulnerabilities and bring DB handling to safe practices: parameterized queries (prepared statements), input validation, minimal DB privileges, escaping where unavoidable. So foreign SQL cannot be executed via forms and parameters. Honestly upfront: we find and close the identified spots and implement the correct pattern, but an audit does not guarantee that NOT A SINGLE injection remains — especially in large/dynamic code.
SQL injection prevention audit — overview
SQL injection prevention audit is a project: we look for unsafe SQL assembly (concatenation of user input into a query), check forms, parameters, API, move queries to parameterization (prepared statements/ORM binding), add input validation/typing, recommend minimal privileges for the DB user, escaping where parameterization is impossible (dynamic identifiers). Honestly about the nature, this is key: SQL injection arises wherever user data reaches a query without parameterization — the correct fix is PARAMETERIZATION (not 'filtering bad words', which is bypassed). We find and close the identified vulnerable spots and implement a safe pattern, substantially reducing risk; but the audit does NOT guarantee that no injection remains — in large, dynamic or poorly structured code something may be missed; for maximum confidence both an automated scan (741) and a manual pentest are needed. Honestly about the boundary: this is an audit and bringing to safe practices, not rewriting the whole data layer from scratch (a big separate job) and not a formal certificate. Honestly about WAF: a filter in front of the application (WAF) reduces risk but does not replace fixing in the code — a targeted injection can bypass the filter. Honestly about access: access to the code and preferably the DB schema is needed. Honestly about the effect: we close what is found and implement the correct pattern; we do NOT guarantee sales growth by itself (this is security). An important boundary: this is about SQL injections, not XSS/CSRF (751/752) and not scanning in general (741). Picture this: instead of 'the database can be pulled via the search field' — parameterized queries and closed points. The base price starts from 18,000 ₽ per project; it depends on code volume and the number of DB-handling points.
Problems we solve
- User input is inserted into SQL by concatenation.
- SQL injection is possible via forms/parameters (DB leak/corruption).
- There are no parameterized queries and input validation.
- The DB user has excessive privileges.
What's included in the SQL injection prevention audit service
- Finding unsafe SQL assembly (forms/parameters/API)
- Moving queries to parameterization (prepared statements/ORM)
- Input validation and typing
- Minimal DB privilege recommendations
- Escaping where parameterization is impossible
- Fixing found vulnerabilities
- Indicating boundaries (not a 'none' guarantee, scan/pentest needed)
- Handover and review with you
What you get
- Found SQL injections closed
- Queries moved to safe parameterization
- Input validation and minimal privileges
- Substantially reduced risk (completeness — via scan/pentest)
How the work goes: steps
- We look for unsafe queries; collect code/DB-schema access
- We parameterize, add validation, recommend privileges
- We test, fix what is found, review with you
Why PDV Expert
- Fixed price and timeline — no surprises on the invoice.
- Report and recommendations in plain language — clear without a technical background.
- In touch at every step and answering questions about the result.
FAQ
After the audit will no SQL injection remain for sure?
We find and close the identified spots and implement the correct pattern (parameterization), substantially reducing risk, but we do NOT guarantee that none remains — in large/dynamic code something may be missed. For maximum confidence an auto-scan and a manual pentest are needed.
Can we just filter 'dangerous' words in queries?
No, that is bad practice — filtering is bypassed. The correct fix is parameterization (prepared statements), where user data cannot become part of an SQL command. We implement exactly that, not fragile 'blacklists'.
Will a WAF protect against SQL injections?
A WAF reduces risk by filtering typical patterns in front of the application, but does not fix the vulnerability — a targeted injection can bypass the filter. Real protection is parameterization in the code; a WAF and the fix complement each other.
About the provider
The «SQL injection prevention audit» service is provided by PDV Expert — a team specialising in «Site quality». We work under contract and deliver a written report with recommendations.