A Cadence audit is a security review of Flow blockchain contracts written in Cadence, focused on resource ownership and destruction, capability and entitlement design, account storage path collisions, and compliance with Flow's NFT and fungible token standards.
Cadence models assets as resources that cannot be copied or silently lost, and it exposes access through capabilities published on accounts. Both are strong primitives and both are frequently misused. A capability published to the public path with more authority than intended hands that authority to everyone, and a storage path collision between two contracts in the same account can make a resource unreachable or overwritable.
We audit Cadence by mapping every capability: what it grants, where it is published, who can borrow it and what an attacker gains by doing so. Alongside that we review resource lifecycle — creation, transfer, destruction, and any path where a resource can be stranded — and verify standard compliance for NFT and fungible token contracts that other applications will integrate against.
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.
Over-published capabilities. A capability placed on a public path with more authority than the use case needs grants that authority to any account that borrows it, and it looks entirely normal in the source.
Not silently destroyed — Cadence prevents that. They can, however, be moved into a storage path nothing can reach again, which for the owner is the same outcome.
Yes. Marketplaces and wallets integrate against the standard, and a non-conforming contract breaks in production even when its own logic is correct.
Yes. On Flow, transactions carry a lot of the logic and are where the capabilities are actually borrowed, so reviewing contracts alone leaves the real attack surface unexamined.
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.