A zkSync Era smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to zkSync Era, carried out against the Zero-knowledge proven EVM execution model and written in Solidity / Vyper — covering both the bug classes shared across zkEVM rollup systems and the failure modes specific to zkSync Era.
zkSync Era is EVM-compatible rather than EVM-equivalent, and the differences are exactly the ones that break security assumptions: native account abstraction, different contract deployment, paymasters, and system contracts with special powers.
Contracts ported to zkSync frequently carry two silent bugs: address derivation that no longer matches (CREATE2 addresses differ), and authorisation logic that assumes msg.sender cannot be a contract. Native account abstraction means every account can be a contract, and paymasters mean the fee payer may not be the caller at all.
We review the equivalence gaps that matter for your code, the account abstraction and paymaster flows, system contract interactions, and the standard EVM surface — then simulate on an Era fork.
zkSync Era runs on Zero-knowledge proven EVM, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
zkSync Era contracts are written in Solidity / Vyper. 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.
Sometimes, but not safely without review. CREATE2 addresses differ, account abstraction changes what msg.sender can be, and paymasters change who pays — each of which has produced real bugs in ported contracts.
Yes, including the drain paths: who can get sponsorship, under what limits, and what an attacker extracts by consuming it.
We audit them, including chain configuration, custom base tokens and bridge setup, alongside the deployed contracts.
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.