A Sui smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Sui, carried out against the Move resource-oriented runtime execution model and written in Move — covering both the bug classes shared across Move VM systems and the failure modes specific to Sui.
Sui's object model removes whole classes of EVM bugs and introduces its own: ownership transitions that cannot be undone, shared-object contention, and capability objects that grant privilege to whoever holds them.
In Move on Sui, privilege is an object. If a capability can be transferred, stored somewhere reachable, or created by a function that should be restricted, the authorisation model is broken regardless of how the rest of the code reads. Equally, the owned/shared distinction determines whether concurrent access is even possible — and getting it wrong either creates a race or makes an object permanently unusable.
We trace every capability from creation to storage, review shared-object mutation for interleaving hazards, check generic type parameters for witness confusion, and validate the package upgrade policy — since an upgrade can change what existing resources mean.
Sui runs on Move resource-oriented runtime, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Sui contracts are written in Move. See our Move 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.
Privilege is held in objects rather than in address checks, and the owned/shared distinction determines concurrency. Most Sui findings involve capability custody, ownership transitions, or generic type parameters that are not constrained.
For critical invariants, yes — the Prover is genuinely useful where a property can be stated formally. It complements manual review rather than replacing it.
Yes. Both use Move, but the object model and standard library differ enough that the review is chain-specific rather than shared.
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.