Recent legislation requires online platforms to provide dedicated APIs to assess the compliance of their decision-making algorithms with the law. Research has nevertheless shown that the auditors of such platforms are prone to manipulation (a practice referred to as \textit{fairwashing}). To address this salient problem, recent work has considered audits under the assumption of partial knowledge of the platform's internal mechanisms. In this paper, we propose a more pragmatic approach with the \textit{Two-Source Audit} setup: while still leveraging the API, we advocate for the adjunction of a second source of data to both perform the audit of a platform and the detection of fairwashing attempts. Our method is based on identifying discrepancies between the two data sources, using data proxies at use in the fairness literature. We formally demonstrate the conditions for success in this fairwashing mitigation task. We then validate our method empirically, demonstrating that Two-Source Audits can achieve a Pareto-optimal balance between the two objectives. We believe this paper sets the stage for reliable audits in manipulation-prone setups, under mild assumptions.