A Scroll smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Scroll, 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 Scroll.
Scroll aims for bytecode-level EVM equivalence, which makes porting straightforward and shifts the audit focus to the bridge, the proving pipeline and the timing assumptions that come with proof-based finality.
Because equivalence is high, most Scroll findings are ordinary EVM findings. The chain-specific surface is the L1/L2 messaging bridge, the behaviour of contracts during proving delays, and any assumption your integrations make about how quickly value can leave the rollup.
We review the contract layer in full, then the cross-domain message lifecycle, withdrawal timing and any remaining equivalence gaps relevant to your code.
Scroll runs on Zero-knowledge proven EVM, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Scroll 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.
Close, which is why porting is usually clean. We still verify the specific opcodes, precompiles and gas behaviour your contracts depend on rather than assuming equivalence across the board.
The messenger and bridge lifecycle, proof-based finality timing, and L1 data fee economics.
Yes, both directions, including what happens to a message that is sent but never successfully relayed.
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.