Blockchain & DLT Audit — An enterprise blockchain and DLT audit reviews permissioned ledger deployments — membership and identity services, chaincode or smart contract logic, endorsement and consensus configuration, channel or privacy boundaries, and the integration points with existing enterprise systems.
Permissioned ledgers replace the public chain's open-attacker model with an insider model: participants are known, but they are not necessarily trusted with everything, and the security of the network depends on configuration that is easy to get subtly wrong — an endorsement policy requiring one signature where it should require several, a channel that leaks data to a member that should not see it, or a CA whose private key sits on a shared machine.
We review the deployment as configured, not as documented: membership and certificate lifecycle, chaincode logic and access control, endorsement and ordering configuration, privacy boundaries, and the enterprise integration layer, which is usually where a permissioned network is actually reachable from.
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.
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | Direct loss of funds or permanent freezing of assets, exploitable by any actor. |
| High | Loss of funds or protocol insolvency under realistic conditions, or requiring a privileged actor to misbehave. |
| Medium | Broken protocol behaviour, denial of service, or value leakage that does not directly drain the contract. |
| Low | Edge-case incorrectness with limited impact, or an issue requiring implausible preconditions. |
| Informational | Code quality, gas efficiency, documentation mismatch and defence-in-depth suggestions. |
Single token contract: starts from $999, report in 24–48 hours. dApp, GameFi or RWA project: starts from $2,999. DeFi protocol, L2 / rollup, Bridge, ZK circuit, AI agent / MCP: scoped per project after we have seen the code.
Hyperledger Fabric and its ecosystem, Corda, Quorum and other permissioned EVM deployments, and enterprise appchains. If your platform is unusual, send us the architecture and we will tell you honestly whether we are the right firm.
Yes, but the model differs: the threat is a compromised or self-interested participant, a misconfigured endorsement policy, or the integration layer that connects the ledger to systems reachable from your corporate network.
Yes, and it is one of the highest-value parts of the review. A policy satisfiable by one organisation — or by several with the same interest — undermines the entire trust model.
Yes: NDAs, security questionnaires, defined SLAs and evidence packages for internal audit are standard for these engagements.
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.
Yes. Fix review is part of the engagement, not an upsell. We re-run the original proof of concept against your patched code and confirm the fix has not introduced a new path.
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.