AI security assistant
Paste code or describe your system and get security work you can act on: a vulnerability review ranked by severity, a threat model for a new feature, an audit of your auth and secrets handling, an incident-response plan. This is the one place a general model is genuinely dangerous alone, because it will confidently write insecure code and miss the real attack. Zeplik grounds the analysis in what you share and is explicit that a human security engineer must verify every finding.
Who it is for
- Engineers who own security without a dedicated security team
- Security engineers who want a fast first pass before a deep review
- Founders shipping a product that handles user data and payments
- Teams preparing for a SOC 2, a pen test, or a security questionnaire
How it works
Paste the code or describe the system
Drop in the code, the endpoint, the auth flow, or a description of your architecture and data flows. Nothing is assumed. The analysis is built only from what you share, and the more real detail you give, the sharper the findings.
Ask for the security work you need
Say it plainly, for example "find the vulnerabilities in this handler" or "threat-model this payment flow." Zeplik routes to the right security skill without you naming it, and you can focus it on auth, injection, secrets, supply chain, or a specific class of bug.
Verify, fix, and re-check
You get findings ranked by severity with the reasoning and a suggested fix. Treat each as a lead to confirm, not a verdict. Apply the fix, run it past your own review and scanners, and check dependencies against a current advisory before you rely on it.
What you can ask
Real asks in plain language, and the concrete deliverable you get back. Open the assistant to try your own; nothing runs until you send it.
Review this code for security vulnerabilities and rank them by severity.
A findings list from the code you paste: each issue with its severity, the attack it enables, the vulnerable line, and a concrete fix, ordered so you address the dangerous ones first.
Build a threat model for the system I will describe.
A structured threat model of your components and data flows: the assets, the likely attackers and entry points, the threats by category, and the controls that reduce each, so you know where to spend effort.
Audit my authentication and session flow for weaknesses.
A review of the auth and session handling you share against known failure modes (weak token handling, missing checks, insecure resets, fixation), with specific hardening steps.
How should I store and rotate secrets and API keys?
A secrets-handling plan for your setup: where keys should live, how to keep them out of code and logs, rotation, and least-privilege scoping, with the concrete changes to make.
Check my dependencies and supply chain for risk.
Supply-chain guidance on the dependencies and build you describe: risky patterns, pinning and integrity, and what to verify, with a clear note that live CVE numbers must be confirmed against a current advisory.
Draft an incident-response plan for a suspected data breach.
A response runbook: the immediate containment steps, who to involve, evidence to preserve, notification considerations, and the post-incident review, adaptable to your stack.
What it can do
The assistant routes to the right skill for you. Each one below is a focused, ready-to-run workflow; follow a link to see exactly what it does.
Review and threat modeling
Find the vulnerabilities and map the attack surface before someone else does.
- Security reviewReview code and design for vulnerabilities with severity and fixes.
- Secure codingApply secure-by-default patterns across a codebase or feature.
- Threat modelingMap assets, attackers, threats, and controls for a system.
- Adversarial reviewStress-test a design or plan by thinking like an attacker.
Harden the app
Lock down auth, secrets, the supply chain, and the audit trail.
- Auth hardeningSecure authentication, sessions, and access-control patterns.
- Secrets managementStore, scope, and rotate keys and secrets safely.
- Supply-chain securityReduce dependency and build-pipeline risk.
- Audit trailsDesign tamper-evident, signed audit logging.
Operate and respond
Understand the network and be ready when something goes wrong.
- Incident responsePlan containment, investigation, and recovery for an incident.
- Network securityReason about network exposure, segmentation, and traffic.
Compliance
Map controls to the frameworks your buyers and regulators ask about.
- Security complianceMap controls to SOC 2, ISO 27001, and similar frameworks.
- Compliance checkCheck a process or document against a regulatory requirement.
Why a general chatbot is dangerous alone on security, and what is different here
Security is the vertical where a raw model does real harm. It will hand you code that looks clean and quietly ships an injection or a broken auth check, and it will invent a CVE number to sound authoritative. The honest posture here is not that Zeplik replaces a security engineer, it is that it grounds the analysis in your code and refuses to pretend a finding is verified when it is not.
The failure. A general model writes code that looks correct but ships a real vulnerability, an injection, a missing authorization check, an insecure default.
How Zeplik grounds it. The review works from the code you paste, names the specific vulnerable line and the attack it enables, and frames each fix as something to apply and then re-check with your own review and scanners, not a guarantee the code is now safe.
The failure. Asked about a dependency, a general model confidently cites a CVE number or a patched version that does not exist.
How Zeplik grounds it. Zeplik is explicit that it does not pull live CVE or advisory data, so it flags dependency and version claims as things you must confirm against a current source (NVD, GitHub advisories) rather than stating them as fact.
The failure. A general model gives you a false sense of safety, implying a clean pass means the system is secure.
How Zeplik grounds it. Every result carries the uniform footer that this is analysis for a qualified security engineer to verify, not a certified audit or pen test, so a clean review is a starting point, not a sign-off.
What it does not do
Knowing the boundary is part of using it responsibly. This is where a person, not the assistant, has to own the call.
- Not an audit or a pen test. This is analysis for a qualified security engineer to verify. It does not certify a system, and a clean review is not proof that the system is secure.
- No live CVE or scanner data yet. It does not pull live CVE feeds, advisories, or SAST output. Confirm every dependency and version claim against a current advisory, and run your own scanners.
- It reviews what you paste. It sees only the code and context you provide. A vulnerability in code it never saw, or in config and infrastructure you did not share, will not be caught.
- Verify before you rely on it. Treat findings as leads and fixes as drafts. Apply them, test them, and have a human review security-critical changes before they ship.
This is security analysis and hardening guidance for review by a qualified security engineer, not a certified audit, a penetration test, or a guarantee that a system is safe. Threat models and fixes are only as complete as the code and context you provide; verify every finding, and check dependencies and CVEs against a current advisory source before you rely on it.
Frequently asked questions
- Is the AI security assistant free?
- Zeplik is free to start and every new account includes credits. Security skills run like any other Zeplik chat, so you spend only normal usage credits, with the cost shown before you send.
- Can it replace a penetration test or a security audit?
- No, and it says so. It is a fast, grounded first pass that finds real issues and hardening opportunities in the code you share. A certified audit or pen test by a qualified engineer is still required, and this does not sign anything off.
- Will it catch every vulnerability?
- No tool does, and this only sees what you paste. It is strong at common classes of bug in the code and design you share, but it cannot catch issues in code, config, or infrastructure you did not provide, so pair it with scanners and human review.
- Does it check dependencies for known CVEs?
- It reasons about supply-chain and dependency risk, but it does not pull live CVE data. It flags version and advisory claims as things you must confirm against a current source like NVD or GitHub advisories, rather than stating them from memory.
- What do I need to give it?
- Paste the code, endpoint, or auth flow you want reviewed, or describe your architecture and data flows for a threat model. The more real detail you share, the sharper and more grounded the findings.
- Is it safe to paste my code here?
- Security work runs as a normal Zeplik chat. Share only what you are comfortable sharing, redact real secrets, and never paste live production credentials. The assistant will also flag secrets it spots in what you send.
More on Zeplik
Review your code for vulnerabilities
Paste code or describe your system and get a severity-ranked review, a threat model, or a response plan. Free to start, and honest that a human engineer must verify every finding.