A Solana smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Solana, carried out against the Sealevel parallel runtime execution model and written in Rust (Anchor / native) — covering both the bug classes shared across Solana runtime systems and the failure modes specific to Solana.
Solana programs fail differently from EVM contracts. There is no msg.sender, every account is passed in by the caller, and the runtime will happily hand your program an account you never intended to touch. Most critical Solana findings are missing validation, not clever exploits.
The Solana account model puts validation entirely on the program. The caller supplies every account a transaction touches, so a program that does not check is_signer, verify program ownership, confirm the account discriminator and derive PDAs canonically can be handed a substitute account that satisfies its logic while belonging to someone else. This single class accounts for a large share of Solana losses.
Our Solana reviews walk every instruction account-by-account: who must sign, who must own, what discriminator is expected, which seeds derive the PDA and whether the bump is canonical. We then review CPI boundaries for privilege propagation, arithmetic for release-build overflow, and account closure for reopen-and-reuse paths — with proofs of concept on a local validator.
Solana runs on Sealevel parallel runtime, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Solana contracts are written in Rust (Anchor / native). 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.
Missing signer checks, missing account ownership checks, type confusion from unverified account discriminators, non-canonical PDA bumps, CPI privilege escalation and unchecked arithmetic in release builds. Nearly all of them are missing validation rather than exotic exploits.
Both. Anchor removes a class of mistakes when its constraints are used correctly, but constraints are frequently incomplete — and native programs must do every check by hand, which is where we spend most of the review.
Yes, including Token-2022 extensions. Transfer fees, transfer hooks and confidential balances break assumptions that hold for classic SPL tokens.
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.