Korea combines an unusually active retail market with a user-protection regime that puts custody arrangements, cold storage and operational controls at the centre of supervision — which is exactly where the security work concentrates.
블록체인 및 스마트 컨트랙트 보안 감사
Korean engagements are dominated by two segments. Exchanges and virtual asset service providers, where custody architecture, the hot/cold boundary, withdrawal authorisation and incident readiness carry the weight; and game, entertainment and consumer platforms issuing on-chain assets at very large user counts, where the risk is a mixture of contract logic, minting authority and the backend that drives both.
The user-protection framework in Korea places explicit emphasis on segregation of user deposits, cold storage of a substantial share of user assets, and information security certification for operators. The practical consequence is that the assessment work has to cover architecture and operational discipline, not just contract code — and it has to produce evidence that stands up to examination rather than a summary that reads well.
Korean consumer platforms operate at a scale that changes the threat model. A minting or authorisation flaw on a game asset system with millions of users is an economy-wide event within hours, and the recovery options are limited by the fact that the assets are already in third-party markets. We prioritise those paths accordingly.
Regulatory references describe the general shape of a regime and are not legal advice. Requirements change; confirm your obligations with your own counsel and supervisor.
We fix a commit hash, agree the in-scope contracts and read your architecture docs, then build a threat model: who the actors are, what the trust boundaries are, and which invariants must never break. Nothing is reviewed against assumptions we have not written down.
Line-by-line review by at least two auditors working independently, focused on authorisation, accounting, upgrade paths, external integrations and the gap between what the code does and what the documentation claims it does. Most critical findings come from this phase, not from tooling.
Static analysers appropriate to the language, plus property-based fuzzing and invariant testing to push the system into states no unit test covers. Tooling is used to widen coverage, never to replace the manual pass.
Candidate findings are proven on a forked network with a working proof of concept. We report what an attacker can actually do and what it costs them, not a theoretical severity label.
Every finding gets a severity rating, reproduction steps, the affected code, the impact in concrete terms and a specific remediation. You get a draft for discussion before anything is finalised.
We re-test every remediation against the original proof of concept and check that the fix has not opened a new path. The final report is yours to publish.
Yes — custody and cold storage architecture, the hot/cold boundary, withdrawal authorisation, deposit crediting, listing risk and platform penetration testing.
We provide the technical assessment and map findings to the relevant control domains. The certification itself is issued by an accredited body, not by us.
Yes, and at Korean consumer scale the priority is minting authority, backend authorisation and marketplace integration — the paths that turn a bug into an economy-wide event within hours.
Reports are in English with a Korean-language executive summary available, and debriefs can run with interpretation.
Mirrored staging for intrusive testing, read-only reconnaissance against production, and anything disruptive confined to an agreed window with a named contact.
A repository or contract address, a commit hash to freeze the scope, whatever architecture or spec documentation exists, and a point of contact who can answer design questions. If documentation is thin we will write our understanding of the system back to you and ask you to confirm it — that step alone catches design-level bugs.
A single token contract is 24–48 hours. A typical dApp or mid-sized protocol runs one to two weeks. Large DeFi systems, L2s, bridges and ZK circuits are scoped per project after we have seen the code. We will give you a fixed timeline with the quote, not an estimate that moves.
Send the repository and a commit hash through the contact form, message @bugtester25 on Telegram, or book a 30-minute scoping call. 200+ protocols audited · $4B+ secured · 0 hacks post-audit. Prefer email? info@safeedges.in.