> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://www.oplane.io/docs/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Oplane vs. AI Security Scanners

> See how Oplane's use-case driven threat modeling compares to Claude Code Security and Codex Security across workflow, compliance, and OWASP coverage.

<Note>
  Claude Code Security is in limited research preview, available only via waiting list. Codex Security (formerly Aardvark) launched in research preview in March 2026 for ChatGPT Pro, Enterprise, Business, and Edu customers via Codex web. This comparison is based on each vendor's published product pages and materials — no independent evaluation has been possible for either tool. Oplane is available to everyone with a free starter trial, today.
</Note>

## What they find

The fundamental difference is not just how each tool works, but what it looks for. Both Claude Code Security and Codex Security scan code for technical vulnerabilities — Codex additionally generates an editable threat model to contextualise its results. Oplane analyses your application's use cases to identify abuse cases and threats — a higher level of security thinking.

#### AI security scanners

CCS & Codex — find code-level vulnerabilities:

* `Shell command injection in deploy.py`
* `JWT validation allows algorithm=none`

#### Oplane

Finds abuse cases and threats:

* "An attacker can gain access to another user's order"
* "All authenticated users can access admin pages"

Oplane understands your application's use cases and derives abuse cases and threats from them automatically. Neither CCS nor Codex Security has a concept of use cases — they scan code for vulnerability patterns but cannot reason about what the code is supposed to do or who might misuse it. Codex Security does generate an editable threat model, but it is project-level context rather than use-case driven analysis.

## Side-by-side

### Development workflow

|                          | Oplane                                         | Claude Code Security                | Codex Security                     |
| ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
| Product focus            | Use-case analysis, change mgmt & secure design | Async code vulnerability scanning   | Async vuln scanning + threat model |
| How it integrates        | ✓ Analyses your feature PRs inline             | ✗ Creates fix PRs from async scans  | ✗ Generates patches from scans     |
| Security in the dev loop | ✓ Fully automated, in-PR                       | ✗ Async only; requires manual merge | ✗ Async only; patches need review  |
| Remediation planning     | ✓ Fix impact, timing & stability risk          | ✗ No remediation context            | \~ Proposes patches with context   |
| Organisation context     | ✓ Knows your architecture & tech stack         | ✗ No organisational awareness       | \~ Editable project threat model   |
| Custom security rules    | ✓ Org-specific standards                       | ✗ Generic reasoning only            | \~ Editable threat model only      |

### Compliance & governance

|                       | Oplane                       | Claude Code Security   | Codex Security                |
| --------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------------- |
| Change management     | ✓ Risk assessment per change | ✗ Not supported        | ✗ Not supported               |
| ISO 27001 / SOC 2     | ✓ Supports CC8.1 & A.8.32    | ✗ Not supported        | ✗ Not supported               |
| Continuous monitoring | ✓ Included                   | ✗ Not available        | \~ Scans commits continuously |
| Compliance reporting  | ✓ Audit-ready                | ✗ Not available        | ✗ Not available               |
| Independent review    | ✓ Four-eyes principle        | ✗ Reviews its own code | ✗ Reviews its own code        |

### Enterprise & infrastructure

|                         | Oplane                    | Claude Code Security | Codex Security       |
| ----------------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- |
| Bring your own model    | ✓ Bedrock, Azure OpenAI   | ✗ Anthropic only     | ✗ OpenAI only        |
| Data residency          | ✓ Stays in your cloud     | ✗ No control         | ✗ No control         |
| Integrations & webhooks | ✓ Risk register, GRC sync | ✗ Not available      | ✗ Not available      |
| Cost model              | Monthly subscription      | Unknown              | ChatGPT subscription |

## OWASP Top 10 (2025)

The OWASP Top 10 2025 draft reflects the latest trends in application security risks. Here's how each tool addresses these categories — from design-level threats to code-level vulnerabilities.

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="vs. Claude Code Security">
    | Category                                       | Oplane                                                                    | Claude Code Security                                                      |
    | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
    | **A01: Broken Access Control**                 | ✓ Use-case analysis catches access control abuse                          | \~ May flag missing auth decorators                                       |
    | **A02: Security Misconfiguration**             | ✓ Catches configuration intent issues (headers, defaults, error exposure) | \~ Generic reasoning only                                                 |
    | **A03: Software Supply Chain Failures**        | ✓ Tracks which versions are in use; supply chain & change context         | \~ Can flag compromised upstream packages                                 |
    | **A04: Cryptographic Failures**                | ✓ Threat analysis                                                         | ✓ Code scanning                                                           |
    | **A05: Injection**                             | ✓ Abuse case modelling                                                    | ✓ Core strength                                                           |
    | **A06: Insecure Design**                       | ✓ Use-case driven threat modeling; design-level analysis (core strength)  | ✗ Code-only scanning; no threat modeling                                  |
    | **A07: Authentication Failures**               | ✓ Use-case + session analysis                                             | \~ Code patterns only                                                     |
    | **A08: Software or Data Integrity Failures**   | ✓ Change mgmt + pipeline awareness                                        | \~ Can read repo (e.g. .github/workflows); no pipeline integrity analysis |
    | **A09: Security Logging & Alerting Failures**  | ✓ Missing logging, audit trail & log integrity (tampering)                | ✗ Not covered                                                             |
    | **A10: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions** | ✓ Abuse cases cover fail-open logic                                       | \~ May flag error handling                                                |
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="vs. Codex Security">
    | Category                                       | Oplane                                                                    | Codex Security                                    |
    | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- |
    | **A01: Broken Access Control**                 | ✓ Use-case analysis catches access control abuse                          | \~ May flag missing auth decorators               |
    | **A02: Security Misconfiguration**             | ✓ Catches configuration intent issues (headers, defaults, error exposure) | \~ Generic reasoning only                         |
    | **A03: Software Supply Chain Failures**        | ✓ Tracks which versions are in use; supply chain & change context         | \~ Can flag compromised upstream packages         |
    | **A04: Cryptographic Failures**                | ✓ Threat analysis                                                         | ✓ Code scanning                                   |
    | **A05: Injection**                             | ✓ Abuse case modelling                                                    | ✓ Core strength                                   |
    | **A06: Insecure Design**                       | ✓ Use-case driven threat modeling; design-level analysis (core strength)  | \~ Editable threat model, but not use-case driven |
    | **A07: Authentication Failures**               | ✓ Use-case + session analysis                                             | \~ Code patterns only                             |
    | **A08: Software or Data Integrity Failures**   | ✓ Change mgmt + pipeline awareness                                        | \~ Scans commits continuously                     |
    | **A09: Security Logging & Alerting Failures**  | ✓ Missing logging, audit trail & log integrity (tampering)                | ✗ Not covered                                     |
    | **A10: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions** | ✓ Abuse cases cover fail-open logic                                       | \~ May flag error handling                        |
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

## Where Oplane excels for security teams

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Use-case driven analysis" icon="sitemap">
    Goes beyond code-level bugs — models abuse cases, threat scenarios, and business-level risk from your application's actual behaviour.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Organisation-aware" icon="building">
    Understands your architecture, tooling choices, and internal standards so every finding is relevant to your stack.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Security in the dev loop" icon="git-pull-request">
    Reviews your feature PRs inline with development — no context switches, no separate fix PRs to triage.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Built-in change management" icon="clipboard-list">
    Risk assessment per change with a structured, auditable trail — directly supports ISO 27001 A.8.32 and SOC 2 CC8.1.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Compliance-ready output" icon="file-check">
    Audit trails, evidence collection, and proof-of-compliance reporting available when you need them.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Genuinely independent review" icon="eye">
    Acts as a separate reviewer of your code — never evaluates its own output.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Your infrastructure, your rules" icon="server">
    Bring your own model via AWS Bedrock or Azure OpenAI, with full data residency and sovereignty controls.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

Both Claude Code Security and Codex Security are useful vulnerability scanners for teams already in the Anthropic or OpenAI ecosystems. Neither is a security platform. For organisations where security is a function with real compliance requirements — change management, remediation planning, audit evidence, independent review, and organisation-aware analysis — Oplane is purpose-built for that job.

Security belongs in the development loop. Oplane puts it there.