When a company grows, speed tends to become the top priority. Development teams write code fast, ship new features every week and keep adding people. In the middle of that pace, it is very easy for invisible problems to appear that put the security, stability and scalability of your projects at risk.
To detect them, people often talk about "auditing the code", but the terms tend to get mixed up. Many executives and technical leaders assume that reviewing the repository is the same as reviewing the software. It is not. Git and code live in the same ecosystem, but they play different roles: Git is the container and the timeline; the code is the content and the logic that makes your application work.
In this guide we explain what each audit covers, how they differ and why a mature development strategy needs both.
In short: a Git audit reviews how the code has been managed, stored and protected over time (forgotten credentials in the history, access and branches). A code audit reviews the current software (vulnerabilities, technical debt and dependencies). One without the other leaves critical risks uncovered.
Why companies need an external technical audit
Internal teams are often so focused on delivering the next feature that they lack the time, or the neutral perspective, to spot structural flaws or bad practices accumulated over the years. It is not a talent problem: nobody calmly reviews what "already works".
That is why having expert developers who can thoroughly audit Git, the code and the architecture of a project is no longer a luxury. It is a strategic necessity for any technology company that wants to grow on solid foundations. That review rests on three pillars: the repository, the code and the architecture.
What a Git audit is: history and access
A Git audit does not stop to evaluate whether a function is well written or an algorithm is optimal. Its focus is how that code has been managed, transported and protected over time, both in the repository itself and on the platform where it is hosted (GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket).
Secrets and credentials exposed in the history
This is the Achilles' heel of many companies. Running git rm or deleting a file in the latest commit does not remove it from the history. API keys, database tokens, certificates or passwords that were pushed months ago are still there, accessible to anyone with read permissions on the repository.
The problem is more common than it seems. According to GitGuardian's State of Secrets Sprawl 2026 report, around 29 million new secrets were leaked in public GitHub commits in 2025, 34% more than the year before. And private repositories are not a safe haven: 32.2% of the internal repositories analyzed contained at least one secret, compared with 5.6% of public ones.
Finding them is only half the job. The same report notes that 64% of the valid secrets detected in 2022 were still working four years later. That is why, when a credential shows up in the history, the right order is:
- Revoke or rotate the credential first. This is what GitHub's own documentation recommends: a revoked key stops granting access, even if it is still written in the history.
- Clean the history afterwards, with tools such as git-filter-repo. It has to be done carefully: the secret can survive in clones, forks and pull requests, and a single merge from an old copy is enough to reintroduce it.
- Prevent it from happening again, with automatic secret scanning before every push and a clear policy on where credentials are stored.
Access, permissions and protected branches
Git does not manage permissions by itself: that is configured on the platform. The audit reviews who can merge directly to production, whether critical branches are protected, whether review is required before integrating changes, and whether former employees or vendors who no longer work on the project still have access.
Repository health and size
Over the years, many repositories accumulate binary files, builds and orphan branches that nobody dares to delete. The result is a bloated history that slows down daily commands and cloning the project. The audit identifies what is unnecessary and proposes how to clean it up. It is worth knowing that cleaning the history means rewriting it and having the whole team clone the repository again, so it needs to be planned, and that tools such as Git LFS help keep it from happening again.
Branching strategy and workflow
A good branching policy prevents disasters in production. There is no single model: GitFlow suits products with planned releases, while for software that is deployed continuously its own author recommends a simpler workflow, such as GitHub Flow or trunk-based development. The audit checks that the chosen model fits the way the team actually works.
The key question a Git audit answers: what sensitive information leaked in the past, and who really has control over our repositories?
What a code audit is: logic and quality
A code audit dives into the current lines of code. Here the substance of the digital product is analyzed, regardless of the exact commit in which each line was introduced. Software that works today can become impossible to maintain tomorrow if the code is fragile.
A deep code review evaluates:
- Security vulnerabilities: flaws an attacker could exploit, such as injections, poor data validation or errors in authentication and access control. The OWASP Top 10:2025, the industry reference, ranks broken access control as the number one risk for web applications.
- Technical debt and maintainability: duplicated code, overly long functions or fragile structures that make any future change more expensive and slower.
- Dependencies: outdated external libraries and packages, or ones with known vulnerabilities. Software supply chain failures rank third in the OWASP Top 10:2025.
- Standardization: that the best practices of the language or framework in use are followed, which makes it easier for new developers to join the team.
The review combines automated analysis tools with manual review by a senior developer. Tools find known patterns; the person understands the context and tells the urgent from the secondary. If part of your code has been generated with AI, this point matters even more, as we explain in our guide to the technical audit of AI-generated code.
The key question a code audit answers: is this software well written, is it safe against external attacks and is it sustainable for the team in the long run?
The third pillar: the project architecture
Beyond individual lines of code, a complete audit evaluates how the components of the system communicate. The question here is about the future: whether the current architecture will support business growth in the medium and long term, where the bottlenecks are and which parts should be redesigned before the volume of users or data puts them to the test.
Git audit vs. code audit: key differences
| Git audit | Code audit | |
|---|---|---|
| What it reviews | The history, commits, access and repository configuration | The logic, architecture, dependencies and vulnerabilities of the application |
| Main risk it mitigates | Passwords, tokens and keys forgotten in the history; improper access | Security flaws, system outages and code that is hard to maintain |
| Who it affects most | Infrastructure security, vendors and team access | Product performance, development costs and user experience |
| Question it answers | What leaked in the past and who controls our repositories? | Is this software secure, solid and sustainable? |
Why your company needs both
Focusing on only one of the two leaves the door open to critical risks.
You can have flawless code, free of vulnerabilities and perfectly structured, but if a master AWS key was pushed by mistake in the very first commit of the repository and was never rotated, your infrastructure is still exposed. Likewise, you can have a tidy, clean repository, but if the application is built on fragile foundations full of logic flaws, a cyberattack or a growth spike will put it up against the ropes.
A mature development strategy audits both fronts.
Signs your company needs an audit
These situations usually indicate that the time has come for an external review:
- The team has grown fast and styles, criteria and permissions from different stages coexist.
- You have inherited a project from a vendor or a previous team and you are not sure what is inside. For these cases we offer a software vendor audit and second opinion.
- Every small change costs too much or breaks something unexpected.
- You are not clear on where credentials are stored or who has access to the repositories.
- An investment round, a sale or a big client is coming up that will ask for technical guarantees.
The value of an external expert
Delegating this review to a specialist brings an objective view. A senior developer with experience across many projects and industries knows exactly where to look for the most common and most costly errors. That allows your company to:
- Prevent security incidents before they affect customers or end up in the headlines.
- Save costs in the long run, reducing the time the team loses on messy code or recurring errors.
- Gain peace of mind, knowing your repositories and projects follow recognized industry best practices.
At MiTSoftware, the audit starts by defining the scope with you and works with read-only access, without interrupting the team. We combine automated analysis with manual review and deliver a report with findings prioritized by risk and a realistic remediation plan. If you need it, we also support you with the implementation, as part of our software review and consulting services and cybersecurity for businesses.
Frequently asked questions about Git and code audits
Does deleting a file with a password remove the risk?
No. Deleting the file or running git rm only removes it from the current version: it is still in the repository history. The first step is to revoke or rotate the credential and, after that, clean the history.
What is the difference between a Git audit and a code audit?
A Git audit reviews the history, access and configuration of the repository. A code audit reviews the current software: its security, quality, dependencies and architecture.
If our repository is private, is there still a risk?
Yes. A private repository is still accessible to employees, former collaborators and vendors, and it can be compromised. According to GitGuardian, internal repositories contain secrets far more often than public ones.
Does the audit interrupt the team's work?
It does not have to. Read-only access to the repositories is enough. The actions that do affect the team, such as rewriting the history, are planned with you once the review is finished.
How often should projects be audited?
There is no single frequency. It is advisable to do it when inheriting a project, before an important milestone (an investment round, a launch or a big client) and periodically in fast-growing projects.
Audit both fronts
Code and Git answer different questions, and the most expensive risks tend to hide in exactly the part nobody reviews. A Git audit tells you what leaked in the past and who controls your repositories. A code audit tells you whether your software is secure, solid and able to grow. Together they protect the technological core of your company.
Are your repositories getting chaotic, are you worried about the security of your credentials, or do you want to make sure your software is ready for the next level of growth? Talk to our team and schedule a comprehensive Git and code audit. Secure your software before small details turn into big problems.
