Smart Contract Security: Common Vulnerabilities We Audit For

Most smart contract exploits trace back to a small set of recurring mistakes: reentrancy, integer overflow, improper access control, and unchecked external calls. Before any contract reaches mainnet, thorough automated and manual review, plus a testnet bug bounty period, is essential for catching what internal review alone can miss.

Most smart contract exploits trace back to a small set of recurring mistakes: reentrancy vulnerabilities, integer overflow/underflow, improper access control, and unchecked external calls.

Before any contract goes to mainnet, we run it through both automated static analysis tools and manual line-by-line review, paying particular attention to any function that transfers value or changes ownership state.

We also recommend a testnet deployment period with bug bounty incentives for any project handling significant value, since real-world adversarial testing catches issues that internal review sometimes misses.

Reentrancy remains one of the most consequential bug classes because it lets an attacker's contract call back into the vulnerable function before the first invocation finishes, draining funds through repeated withdrawals before balances are updated. The fix, updating state before making external calls, sounds simple but is easy to miss under time pressure.

A common pitfall is relying solely on automated scanners, which reliably catch known vulnerability patterns but miss logic errors specific to a contract's own business rules, such as an access control check that is technically present but attached to the wrong function.

We also review the upgrade path itself when a contract is upgradeable, since a poorly secured admin key or proxy pattern can undermine even a contract whose core logic passed every other check cleanly.

For any project handling meaningful value, we treat the audit as a process rather than a single event, re-reviewing any code changed after the initial pass before it goes anywhere near mainnet.