A NEAR smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to NEAR, carried out against the Chain-specific execution environment execution model and written in Rust — covering both the bug classes shared across Chain-specific runtime systems and the failure modes specific to NEAR.
NEAR's asynchronous, sharded execution means a cross-contract call is not atomic: the first half of your logic can succeed and the second half fail, leaving state in a condition that no synchronous chain would produce.
The dominant NEAR vulnerability class is callback handling. A cross-contract call resolves in a later block, and if the callback does not correctly handle failure — or if state was optimistically updated before the call resolved — an attacker can force the partial-execution path deliberately.
We review every cross-contract call and its promise/callback structure, storage staking and deposit handling, access key permissions, and the gas attached to each call, with proofs of concept on a local network.
NEAR runs on Chain-specific execution environment, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
NEAR contracts are written in Rust. See our Rust 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.
Callback handling. Cross-contract calls are asynchronous and non-atomic, so any state updated optimistically before the promise resolves can be left inconsistent by an attacker who forces the failure path.
Yes. Function-call keys with excessive allowance, and full-access keys used where a restricted key would suffice, are a recurring finding.
Rust primarily, and JavaScript SDK contracts where used — the async and storage-staking issues are the same either way.
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.