API inventory and exposure
Public and private exposure, endpoint ownership, lifecycle state, versioning, deprecation, and documentation gaps.
API Security
Treat APIs as authority boundaries.
Review the interfaces that move data, permissions, tokens, partner access, and agent actions.
Know what each caller can see, change, and combine.
System map
The surface is mapped before the work begins.
Each Solutions page uses the same operating view: define the trust surface, identify the review loop, and make the evidence usable for builders and leaders.
API Security
Trust map
Inventory
Identity
Objects
Functions
Abuse
Evidence
Review loop
Frame
Map
Inspect
Evidence
Context
APIs are authority boundaries.
An API does not merely expose data or functionality. It defines what one system, identity, partner, user, or agent is allowed to request from another.
When that authority is unclear, a correctly authenticated request may still access the wrong object, invoke the wrong function, expose excessive information, or automate an action beyond its intended scale.
What SecureSpace examines
Identity and tokens
Authentication, token handling, service identities, partner access, delegated credentials, and credential revocation.
Authorisation
Object-level authorisation, function-level authorisation, tenant boundaries, service-to-service trust, and internal permission drift.
Request and response controls
Request validation, response minimisation, schema design, error handling, file endpoints, and bulk-data endpoints.
Abuse and automation
Rate limits, abuse controls, replay protection, idempotency, enumeration, scraping, and high-volume autonomous behaviour.
Webhooks and integrations
Webhook security, partner integrations, signing, replay windows, endpoint ownership, and downstream trust assumptions.
Agent-consumed APIs
Tool descriptions, API permissions, planning-to-execution gaps, approval context, and AI clients that can combine many valid calls into risky workflows.
Logging and evidence
Audit context, caller identity, sensitive operations, error detail, monitoring ownership, and incident reconstruction.
Common situations and failure patterns
01
Broken object-level authorisation
02
Broken function-level authorisation
03
Excessive data exposure
04
Weak tenant isolation
05
Long-lived or over-scoped tokens
06
Missing service ownership
07
Insecure webhooks
08
Replayable operations
09
Unsafe bulk actions
10
Weak schema validation
11
Untracked internal APIs
12
Inconsistent authorisation between services
13
Debug endpoints in production
14
Agent use without dedicated permission controls
15
Missing audit context
How SecureSpace approaches the work
01
Inventory APIs and consumers
Identify the APIs, consumers, owners, environments, and data sensitivity that define the review scope.
02
Identify identities and trust relationships
Map users, services, partners, agents, credentials, tokens, and delegated authority.
03
Map data and authority
Understand what each endpoint can read, modify, trigger, expose, or combine with other operations.
04
Review authentication and authorisation
Inspect controls across representative endpoints and critical flows.
05
Model misuse and automation
Review how repeated, combined, or agent-driven calls could create outcomes the design did not intend.
06
Support remediation and evidence
Prioritise findings and translate them into fixes, ownership, tests, and defensible records.
What the work can produce
API trust map
Endpoint risk inventory
Authentication review
Authorisation findings
Data-exposure analysis
Abuse-case model
Agent-consumption review
Webhook review
Token and service-identity analysis
Prioritised remediation plan
Logging and evidence recommendations
Who it is for
Teams that need clarity without slowing the build.
Teams opening APIs to partners
Product teams connecting agents to APIs
Platform teams with internal service APIs
SaaS teams preparing enterprise integrations
Security teams reviewing API authority boundaries
Mintos AI
API authority is one of the foundations Mintos AI studies.
Agentic systems often depend on APIs as tools. SecureSpace API work helps reveal which permission, evidence, and service-trust patterns matter most.
Those lessons can inform Mintos AI direction without implying that a specific automated capability is already public.
What this work should not overclaim
API review depth depends on inventory quality, access, documentation, test environments, and agreed scope.
Load testing is not included unless explicitly scoped.
A point-in-time API review does not replace ongoing engineering ownership.
Questions teams usually ask
Can SecureSpace review internal APIs?
Yes. Internal APIs often carry sensitive authority and can be reviewed subject to access and scope.
Can you review GraphQL?
Yes. Query controls, authorisation, introspection, batching, and data exposure can be included where relevant.
Can you review agent-facing tools and APIs?
Yes. Agent-consumed APIs are a major focus because autonomous clients can change the risk profile of otherwise familiar endpoints.
Is API discovery included?
Discovery can be included, but the expected depth depends on documentation, access, traffic sources, and environment limits.
Does an API review replace a code review?
No. API review and code review answer different questions and may be combined when the scope requires it.
Can SecureSpace help design API permissions?
Yes. Architecture and permission modelling can be included before implementation or during a redesign.
Continue from here
Next step
Start with the system, not the category label.
Tell us what you are building, which decision is becoming difficult, and where the security boundary feels unclear.