Crypto Wallet Security Audit

Wallet Audit — A wallet audit reviews how a wallet generates, stores and uses private keys, how it constructs and displays transactions for approval, and how it defends against malicious dApps, phishing and supply-chain compromise across its extension, mobile and backend surfaces.

What a wallet audit covers

A wallet has one job that cannot fail: never let a key leave, and never let a user sign something they did not intend. Everything else is secondary. Most wallet incidents come from the second half — a signing flow that renders a hostile payload as something benign, or an origin check that lets any page request a signature.

We review key lifecycle first (generation entropy, storage, encryption, backup, memory handling), then the approval surface (what is displayed, what is signed, how origins are bound to sessions), then the update and distribution channel that could replace your code entirely.

Vulnerability classes we look for

Key generation and entropy

Weak or predictable randomness, mnemonic generation flaws, and derivation path errors producing recoverable keys.

Key storage and encryption at rest

Keys in plaintext storage, weak KDF parameters, keys retained in memory after use, and secure-enclave usage that falls back silently.

Backup and recovery flows

Mnemonic exposure during backup, cloud backup without user-held encryption, and social-recovery schemes with a collusion threshold lower than advertised.

Origin binding and permissions

dApp permissions granted too broadly, missing origin checks on signature requests, and sessions that persist beyond the user's expectation.

Transaction display and blind signing

Calldata the user cannot interpret, EIP-712 payloads rendered as opaque hashes, and simulation that fails open instead of warning.

Supply chain and update integrity

Unsigned updates, unpinned dependencies, and extension store publishing credentials without hardware-backed protection.

Inter-process and deep-link handling

Mobile deep links triggering signing flows, WebView bridge exposure, and IPC accepting messages from unverified callers.

Backend and telemetry privacy

Address and balance queries linking users, analytics leaking transaction intent, and API rate limits that expose wallet-level data.

In scope

Not in scope unless agreed

How the engagement runs

  1. Scoping and threat modelling

    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.

  2. Manual review

    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.

  3. Static and dynamic analysis

    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.

  4. Exploit-path simulation

    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.

  5. Reporting

    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.

  6. Fix review and re-test

    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.

What you receive

How we rate severity

SeverityWhat it means
CriticalDirect loss of funds or permanent freezing of assets, exploitable by any actor.
HighLoss of funds or protocol insolvency under realistic conditions, or requiring a privileged actor to misbehave.
MediumBroken protocol behaviour, denial of service, or value leakage that does not directly drain the contract.
LowEdge-case incorrectness with limited impact, or an issue requiring implausible preconditions.
InformationalCode quality, gas efficiency, documentation mismatch and defence-in-depth suggestions.

Pricing

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.

Wallet Audit: frequently asked questions

Do you audit MPC and smart-contract wallets?

Yes. For MPC we review the protocol implementation, share handling and the recovery path; for smart-contract wallets, the account contract, module and plugin system, session keys and the guardian or recovery configuration.

Can you review our transaction simulation?

Yes, and specifically its failure mode: whether it fails closed with a clear warning or fails open and lets the user proceed with no information.

Do you test the browser extension surface?

Yes — content script and background isolation, message passing, origin validation, and what a malicious page can reach through the injected provider.

What about phishing resistance?

We assess whether the wallet gives users the information needed to detect a hostile request: readable payloads, known-contract labelling, allowance visibility and warning quality.

What do you need from us to start an audit?

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.

How long does an audit take?

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.

Is a re-test included after we fix the issues?

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.

Related security services

Get a fixed quote in 24 hours

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.