A XION smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to XION, carried out against the Cosmos SDK application chain execution model and written in CosmWasm (Rust) — covering both the bug classes shared across Cosmos SDK / IBC systems and the failure modes specific to XION.
XION's generalised abstraction lets users act without holding gas tokens or managing keys directly, which moves the security question to the abstraction layer: what authenticates a user, and what can be done on their behalf.
Account abstraction at the chain level means the authenticator is the security boundary. If an authentication method can be added, replaced or spoofed, the account is compromised regardless of the contract logic behind it. Fee abstraction adds a second question: who is paying, and can that be drained.
We review the account abstraction and authenticator model, session and delegation scope, fee grant configuration, and the CosmWasm contracts themselves.
XION runs on Cosmos SDK application chain, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
XION contracts are written in CosmWasm (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.
The authenticator. Whoever can add or replace an authentication method controls the account, so that authority — and every path to it — is the centre of the review.
Yes, specifically the drain paths: who can consume sponsored gas, under what limits, and what it costs the sponsor.
It includes one. The contracts get a full CosmWasm review, plus the abstraction-layer surface that is specific to XION.
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.