Line-by-line contract review
Manual review by engineers who write production contracts, focused on the economic assumptions as much as the code. Most serious findings are design flaws, not missing modifiers.
An audit is worth paying for when it changes what you ship. We prioritise findings by what they actually cost you if exploited, reproduce each one, and stay available while your team fixes them — rather than delivering a PDF and disappearing.
Manual review by engineers who write production contracts, focused on the economic assumptions as much as the code. Most serious findings are design flaws, not missing modifiers.
We leave you the tests, not just the report. Property-based suites encoding your protocol's invariants keep catching regressions long after the engagement ends.
Trust boundaries, adversary capabilities and failure modes mapped before implementation, where a fix costs a conversation instead of a migration.
Authentication, authorisation, tenant isolation, injection and business-logic abuse, tested against the application as deployed rather than as documented.
How keys are generated, split, stored, rotated and recovered — and a rehearsal of the recovery, because an untested recovery plan is a hope.
Two to four weeks for most codebases, driven by contract count and economic complexity rather than line count. We scope after reading the code, not before.
Yes, on request. We produce a summary suitable for publication alongside the detailed private report, once findings are resolved or formally accepted.
We tell you immediately rather than saving it for the report, and we stay engaged through remediation and re-testing. Nothing about a critical finding benefits from waiting.
Tell us what you are building. You will hear back from an engineer, not a sales development rep — usually within one business day.
San Francisco, CA · Serving clients in 30+ countries