Continue security audit
Built with Continue? Review these security risks before launch.
Continue is the IDE assistant for technical builders — and technical builders still ship the same boring security failures as everyone else. Below are the recurring patterns we audit out of Continue-built codebases.
Common problems
What we keep finding in Continue codebases.
Backend validation gaps
Generated logic validates only in the UI. Bypass the form and the underlying mutation accepts whatever you sent.
ExampleA “create invoice” mutation accepts anyamountfrom the client — including a negative one that becomes a credit.Weak authentication assumptions
Session handling and protected routes are commonly incomplete. The happy path is logged in; the edge cases are not.
Insecure API wrappers
Helper functions expose internal logic too broadly. A wrapper meant for an admin panel ends up callable from anywhere.
Prompt fixes
What to tell the model.
Paste these into your next conversation. They steer generation toward safer defaults — but they aren't a substitute for review.
For: Backend validation gaps
“Validate all inputs server-side regardless of frontend validation. Never trust client state.”
For: Weak authentication assumptions
“Protect every sensitive route server-side and validate identity for all privileged actions.”
For: Insecure API wrappers
“Restrict API wrappers to least privilege and prevent direct access to privileged internal operations.”
Manual verification
The Continue checklist.
Run through each item by hand before you ship. If anything is unclear, treat it as a red flag, not a green light.
- Submit each form with the JS disabled and confirm server validation rejects bad input.
- Hit each protected route from an unauthenticated session and confirm a 401.
- Audit every internal helper for accidental client exposure.
- Verify session invalidation on logout and password change.
- Run a full negative-path test on every privileged action.
If issues are already live
Damage control, in order.
If you suspect any of the above already shipped to real users, work the list top-to-bottom. Don’t skip rotation.
- 1Audit protected endpoints for missing identity checks.
- 2Verify session invalidation works as advertised.
- 3Test unauthorized access paths against every privileged route.
- 4Review internal helper exposure and restrict where needed.
- 5Add server-side schema validation to every mutation.
Why AI-generated fixes still fail
The model that wrote the bug rarely sees it.
Same blind spots
The patterns that produced the vulnerability are baked into the model's training. Asking it to audit itself reproduces the same assumptions.
Context windows lie
The model sees the file you paste, not your auth middleware, your RLS policies, or the route you forgot to protect. It can't review what it can't see.
Confidence ≠ correctness
AI fixes look polished and read well. That's a signal of fluency, not of safety. Real verification needs a human who can hit the endpoint.
Don’t ask AI to audit AI
You wouldn’t let an intern grade their own homework.
Most builders type “is this secure?” back into the same chat that wrote the code. You need independent verification — someone whose context isn’t poisoned by what just got generated. That’s Kleared.
Technical builders still miss boring security failures. Those are the ones that hurt most.
Kleared checks them first — server-side validation, route-level auth, internal helper exposure — and opens fix-PRs in your repo.
Before you launch
Run a real human security review.
Not another prompt. Kleared checks the boring stuff that breaks production:
- auth
- permissions
- secrets
- uploads
- database exposure
- API security
- payment flows
- production configs
So you can ship without guessing.