Audit by listing every page whose code touches security, checking each against current guidance from the library or standard it relies on, and then updating, dating or retiring it. Start with passwords, TLS, tokens, installs and dependencies, because that is where advice ages worst.
Why docs go stale in a way code does not
Code that is wrong tends to break. Docs that are wrong keep working on the page for years. A tutorial that taught a weak password hashing method in an earlier era still renders perfectly. Meanwhile the guidance changed. The OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet, for example, currently says passwords must be protected with strong, slow hashing algorithms such as Argon2id, bcrypt or PBKDF2, with a unique salt, and that fast hashes such as SHA-256 are not suitable for password storage. A page written before that was standard practice may say the opposite.
The reader cannot tell. A search result carries no age warning, and an assistant repeating the page will not either.
Step by step audit
- Build the inventory. Search the docs repository for code blocks using terms like password, token, encrypt, hash, certificate, verify, sudo, chmod, install and version numbers.
- Rank by reach. Check traffic and inbound links, and audit the busiest pages first.
- Check against the source of truth. For each page, open the current documentation of the library, framework or standard it uses and compare the approach.
- Check the dependencies. Install the versions the page names and scan them. A tutorial pinned two years ago may use releases with published advisories.
- Decide per page: update, add a dated note, redirect to a newer page, or remove it.
- Record the review date on the page, and schedule the next review.
Decision table
| Finding | Action |
|---|---|
| Advice contradicts current guidance | Rewrite and note the change in the changelog |
| Advice is acceptable but pinned versions have advisories | Bump versions, retest the sample |
| Advice is superseded by a newer page | Redirect and keep the old URL working |
| Page teaches a practice no one should use | Remove it, redirect to the right guide |
| Page is fine | Update the review date |
For redirect handling, see redirects and status codes for moved or deleted docs.
Make aging visible
A "last reviewed" line at the bottom of each page does more than it seems. It tells readers how much to trust the advice, and it tells your team which pages are overdue. Pair it with a "tested with" line listing versions.
Where you cannot rewrite right away, add a short banner at the top that says the page is under review and links to the maintained alternative.
What to automate
Automate the inventory and the dependency scan, because they are mechanical. Keep the judgement call human. A docs build can fail on a missing review date, or on any code block that matches a short list of known bad patterns your team maintains.
Try it yourself
A scan of pinned dependencies is the mechanical part of the audit. Click through one.
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Safeguard's dependency scanning and SBOM generation can inventory the versions your sample projects pin, and continuous monitoring can flag new advisories after you publish. Try the free scan at https://gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Quick check
How often should security related docs be reviewed?
Pick a schedule your team will keep, such as twice a year for high traffic pages, and re-review sooner when a library or standard changes.
Should old pages be deleted?
Only when they teach something unsafe. Otherwise update them or redirect to a newer page so links keep working.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
