Blockchain Penetration Testing — Blockchain penetration testing is offensive security testing of everything around your smart contracts — nodes, RPC endpoints, APIs, key custody, admin panels, bridges and the dApp front end — simulating a real attacker to find the path into your system that does not go through the contract at all.
Contracts are only part of the attack surface. Protocols lose funds through compromised deployer keys, an admin panel with no authentication, a validator node exposing an unauthenticated RPC method, a front end serving a swapped contract address, a CI pipeline that can push to production, or a Discord bot with a wallet attached. None of these appear in a contract audit, and all of them have caused nine-figure losses.
We test the way an attacker works: enumerate what is reachable, find the weakest identity boundary, chain low-severity issues into a real path, and prove the impact. Because the same team reviews your contracts, we look for the crossings a generalist firm misses — an API that can influence an on-chain parameter, an off-chain signer whose message format allows replay, a keeper bot whose failure is profitable to induce.
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.
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | Direct loss of funds or permanent freezing of assets, exploitable by any actor. |
| High | Loss of funds or protocol insolvency under realistic conditions, or requiring a privileged actor to misbehave. |
| Medium | Broken protocol behaviour, denial of service, or value leakage that does not directly drain the contract. |
| Low | Edge-case incorrectness with limited impact, or an issue requiring implausible preconditions. |
| Informational | Code quality, gas efficiency, documentation mismatch and defence-in-depth suggestions. |
Single token contract: starts from $999, report in 24–48 hours. dApp, GameFi or RWA project: starts from $2,999. DeFi protocol, L2 / rollup, Bridge, ZK circuit, AI agent / MCP: scoped per project after we have seen the code.
An audit reviews on-chain code. A penetration test attacks everything else: nodes, APIs, keys, infrastructure and the front end. Most protocols need both, because most real incidents involve a component that no contract audit would have looked at.
Where possible we work against a staging environment that mirrors production, plus read-only reconnaissance of production. Anything intrusive against live systems happens only inside an agreed window with a rollback plan and a named contact on your side.
PTES and the OWASP Testing Guide for the web and API surface, OWASP API Security Top 10 for service authorisation, and our own Web3-specific checklist for node, key, bridge and signer surfaces. Findings map to CVSS with a plain-English impact statement.
A report with each finding, its exploit path, evidence, business impact and remediation, ranked by exploitability rather than by scanner score — plus a re-test after you fix, and a debrief call with the testers.
Yes. Bridges get both halves: the contract and proof-verification review, and the operational review of relayers, validator sets and the keys that authorise messages. Bridge incidents are usually operational rather than cryptographic.
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.