A HyperEVM smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to HyperEVM, carried out against the Ethereum Virtual Machine execution model and written in Solidity — covering both the bug classes shared across EVM Layer 1 systems and the failure modes specific to HyperEVM.
HyperEVM sits alongside a high-performance on-chain order book, and the interesting security surface is the boundary between them: contracts that read or act on exchange state inherit that state's manipulability.
Protocols on HyperEVM frequently price positions or trigger actions based on order book state. That makes order book depth, oracle construction and the latency between the two environments part of the contract's threat model — a thin book is a manipulable price.
We review the contract layer plus the precompile and bridge boundary to the exchange, price derivation from order book state, and behaviour when the two environments disagree or one is congested.
HyperEVM runs on Ethereum Virtual Machine, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
HyperEVM contracts are written in Solidity. See our Solidity 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.
The boundary with the on-chain order book: how you read exchange state, how manipulable that state is at realistic depth, and what your contracts do when the two environments disagree.
You can, but it must be treated as a manipulable source: depth analysis, sanity bounds and a fallback. We test how much capital it takes to move the price you depend on.
Yes, plus the cross-environment surface, which is where the chain-specific findings are.
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.