The UAE has built purpose-designed virtual asset regimes in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and firms operating under them face explicit technology governance and security expectations rather than borrowed ones. Engagements here are scoped accordingly.
Dubai and Abu Dhabi have attracted a large concentration of exchanges, custodians, brokers, market makers and token issuers in a short period. What distinguishes UAE engagements is that the regulatory frameworks were written specifically for virtual assets, so technology risk, custody arrangements and security testing appear as explicit requirements rather than as inferences from general financial rules.
That makes the practical shape of the work fairly consistent: custody and key management architecture, exchange or brokerage platform testing, smart contract review for anything issued, third-party dependency assessment, and evidence packages structured for a supervisor and an internal audit function that will both read them. Firms in the authorisation process often need the assessment before approval rather than after launch.
Time zone helps. India and the Gulf share a close working day, so UAE clients get same-day responsiveness, on-site attendance where an engagement genuinely benefits from it — a key ceremony, a workshop, a debrief with a board — and a team reachable in their own business hours rather than overnight.
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. We provide the independent technical security assessment — custody review, platform testing, contract audit and control evidence — and your compliance team and counsel map it to the applicable rulebook.
Yes, and it is common. Pre-authorisation engagements focus on architecture, custody design and demonstrable controls, which is what the application actually needs to evidence.
Yes, where the engagement benefits from it — key ceremonies, workshops and board or supervisor-facing debriefs in particular. The rest of the work runs remotely with full overlap in your business day.
Yes. Those need both the RWA workstream — custody of the underlying, attestation, redemption — and, where the instrument is regulated, the tokenized securities workstream.
Fixed-fee, fixed-scope statements of work with USD invoicing, NDA first, and named engagement personnel. We complete vendor onboarding and security questionnaires as standard.
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.