A Linea smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Linea, carried out against the Zero-knowledge proven EVM execution model and written in Solidity — covering both the bug classes shared across zkEVM rollup systems and the failure modes specific to Linea.
Linea is a zkEVM rollup with high EVM compatibility and a message service that behaves differently from the OP Stack pattern — which is where contracts ported from other L2s tend to break.
Teams deploying across several L2s often abstract "the bridge" into one interface and assume the semantics match. On Linea the message service has its own claiming model and fee handling, and messages that are not claimed behave differently from messages that fail.
We review the full contract surface plus the Linea message service integration, postman and claiming flows, and the finality assumptions your integrations make.
Linea runs on Zero-knowledge proven EVM, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Linea 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 message service and its claiming model, fee handling for cross-chain messages, and finality timing — plus verification of the EVM compatibility gaps that touch your code.
Not full audits, but you do need a deployment-delta review per chain. The cross-chain messaging semantics differ, and shared bridge abstractions hide those differences.
Yes, exploit simulation runs against the actual chain state rather than a generic EVM environment.
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.