Cursor Security Review Before Deployment

A Cursor security review should follow a change from the generated diff to the deployed behavior. Review what the agent changed, test the permissions that matter, and confirm that production serves the configuration you expected.

An AI explanation is useful input to that review. Treat it as a proposal you can inspect, with evidence and tests attached, rather than a security verdict.

Review the change before reviewing the whole repository

Begin with the diff and a specific question: what new capability does this change give a user? Adding an export button, for example, may introduce a backend endpoint, database query, file generation and download permission.

Trace that path. Identify the request, the identity check, the ownership decision and the data returned. Check whether any existing access restrictions were removed while making the feature work.

Ask Cursor to summarize the changed trust boundaries. A trust boundary is the point where the app moves from untrusted input to a decision involving credentials, private data or privileged behavior. This is usually more useful than a long list of generic recommendations.

Keep agent execution controls in the review

Cursor’s current documentation describes Run Modes and their approval and sandbox behavior. Review your selected mode, available integrations and permissions before giving an agent sensitive work. Cursor’s Run Modes guide also explains that automatic review is not a security boundary.

Use version control and inspect pending changes before committing. Keep private credential values out of prompts and shared review artifacts. A tool’s ability to read a file or run a command does not establish that the action is appropriate for the task.

For a security fix, give the agent a narrow scope. Avoid mixing a permissions repair with a broad framework migration; a small diff makes it easier to see whether the intended restriction was added.

Add a test that would catch the mistake

For a hypothetical document export, create two users with separate synthetic documents. The owner should download their document. The other user should be denied even when they know its identifier. An anonymous request should also fail where login is required.

Check the denial behavior and the response body. A frontend error message is insufficient if the backend has already sent the private document. Conversely, an empty result may be the intended denial in some data layers; make the assertion match your application’s contract.

Add a test for legitimate sharing if the product supports it. A repair that blocks everyone can pass a superficial negative test while breaking the feature.

Ask for evidence in the fix prompt

Review the changed export flow. Identify the server-side authentication and ownership checks. Use two synthetic users to demonstrate allowed and denied access. Propose the smallest repair, list every changed file, and explain which test would fail before the fix. Do not replace a missing authorization check with a hidden UI control.

Review the proposed test setup and fixtures before running them. Keep destructive test cases in an environment you control, using synthetic data and a defined cleanup plan.

Inspect the deployed app as a separate step

Source review can miss the host configuration. Confirm that production does not serve private files, that expected headers are present, and that public browser resources do not contain private credentials.

Use the Cursor security scanner page to understand VibeShield’s public-URL checks. A free instant scan checks a limited passive scope; verified account scans can investigate additional configuration issues. Follow the scan-results guide when interpreting evidence.

Keep the deployed commit, test results and scan scope together. If a scan is blocked or a check is skipped, record that limitation so the result is not mistaken for full coverage.

Common questions

Can Cursor review every security risk in my app?

An agent can help inspect code and propose tests, but coverage depends on context and scope. Explicitly test permissions, sensitive workflows and deployment settings.

Should I trust a fix because its explanation sounds correct?

Inspect the changed code and run a meaningful test. The useful evidence is the enforced behavior, including allowed access and denied access.