A Aztec smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Aztec, carried out against the Cairo VM with STARK proofs execution model and written in Noir — covering both the bug classes shared across Cairo / STARK systems and the failure modes specific to Aztec.
Aztec adds privacy to the audit surface. Alongside the usual questions about correctness, a Noir circuit review must answer whether the constraint system is complete and whether the private state actually stays private.
Two failure classes dominate zero-knowledge application review: under-constrained circuits, where a valid proof can be produced for a false statement, and privacy leakage, where public inputs, note structure or transaction metadata reveal what should be hidden.
We review circuit constraints for completeness and soundness, nullifier derivation and double-spend protection, note encryption and discovery, and the public/private boundary of your contract logic.
Aztec runs on Cairo VM with STARK proofs, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Aztec contracts are written in Noir. See our Noir audit methodology.
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.
A circuit missing a constraint it needs, so a prover can generate a valid proof for a statement that is false. It is the ZK equivalent of an unchecked authorisation and it is the highest-severity finding class in this space.
Yes. A circuit can be perfectly sound and still leak — through public inputs, note structure, amounts or timing. We review both.
Yes. Noir is used across several ZK stacks and the constraint review is the same discipline.
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.