Prepare the evidence
Include published audit reports, public technical work such as GitHub activity and the company's audit specializations.
DeFi Security Alliance directory
Compare 23 auditor profiles, open locally hosted audit reports and explore practical security resources.
For smart contract security companies
Membership decisions are based on public, checkable evidence of smart contract security work.
Include published audit reports, public technical work such as GitHub activity and the company's audit specializations.
Keep report links and repositories accessible. Keep the organization and contact details current. Reviewers may compare the evidence with current member standards and request clarification.
The published review window is at least . After a rejection, a company may reapply in with updated evidence and a clear account of what changed.

Choosing a security firm
The top 10 cybersecurity companies below are ranked for one buyer: a team shipping a product that has smart contracts on one side and a web application, an API and a cloud account on the other. Each entry was checked on September 3, 2026 against the firm's own published material, and the three archives that sit on GitHub were counted through the API rather than estimated. One of the ten publishes price bands and lead times before the sales call, and the other nine quote on request.

Personas and market
A crypto due diligence checklist should end in an evidence chain, not a row of green badges. We apply that standard to Lido on Ethereum by tracing two live proxies into verified implementations, matching the deployed scope to an audit commit and mapping privileged functions to their current control path. Our separate survey of 30 top total value locked records shows why the extra work matters: only 16 supplied an audit link, and a link alone says nothing about scope.

Token risk
Every honeypot token detection service answers with a simulated trade, not with a statement about the token. A checker buys and sells against one live pair at one block, then reports what happened to that trade. This guide takes the method apart, names the four contract patterns that survive it, and reports our own run of 150 tokens through two public checkers on September 4, 2026.

Attack classes
An oracle manipulation attack rarely breaks the oracle. It moves the venue the oracle reports, or reads a price the protocol should never have trusted, then borrows against the result. This comparison sizes spot reads, Uniswap TWAPs, Chainlink push feeds and pull oracles by what an attacker has to control, and carries our own survey of every Chainlink feed parameter published on four networks.

Attack classes
A signature replay attack costs nothing to run: the attacker resubmits bytes the real owner already signed, and every check inside the contract passes. Six fields decide whether that works, and published audit reports name the category far more often than they file a finding against it. This guide maps each variant to the auditor check that catches it, then measures what 155 member firm reports actually say.

Audit alternatives
Code4rena, the platform that made the smart contract audit contest famous, is closing its doors, which changes the answer for every team choosing between a contest, a private firm and a bug bounty. This guide prices contests and private review from platform data read on September 4 2026, across 40 finished contests on two platforms, and describes the bounty layer rather than pricing it. It ends with a routing rule that survives the disappearance of any single venue.

Operations
The job called smart contract monitoring starts once the audit is over: watching a live contract's events and storage slots for the changes that matter, then getting a person or a script to act on them. This guide names the events with their exact signatures, gives a procedure for deriving alert thresholds rather than copying someone else's, and walks the escalation path from a firing rule to a pause transaction. It also dates the end of OpenZeppelin Defender and measures how many alliance member firms publish a monitoring service at all.

Audit deliverables
An audit report explained properly starts at the scope statement and the dates, not at the findings table. Everything below those pages is conditional on them: which files were read, in what window and under which severity rule the firm writes its labels. This guide walks a real published report end to end, and measures the severity and status vocabulary that member firm reports actually use.

Audit deliverables
A fake audit report is a document that claims a security review which never happened, or a real report that no longer describes the code you are about to use. Both are caught the same way, by checking the report against the two things it should name: the commit that was audited and the deployed address it maps to. This guide gives the procedure, and a measurement of how often published reports carry those anchors at all.

Disclosure and bounties
A security disclosure policy is the published set of rules that tells a researcher where to send a vulnerability report, what they may test and what happens next. On September 2, 2026, only 3 of the 30 largest DeFi protocols by TVL served a security.txt file, and one of those three met RFC 9116. This guide gives protocol teams the policy wording, the file, the SEAL Safe Harbor steps and the response deadlines, each tied to a published source or to the terms real adopters set.

Tooling
Fuzzing generates inputs and call sequences against compiled contracts and checks that stated properties hold. Echidna, Medusa and Foundry all do smart contract fuzzing, with different default budgets, coverage guidance, shrinking and setup cost, so the right pick depends on whether the bug you fear needs one input or a sequence of calls. This guide gives the decision path, a settings matrix from each tool's current documentation, and a scan of what the 30 largest DeFi protocols actually keep in their repositories.

DSA article
Discover key insights and navigate the complex world of smart contract auditors with our article on the Quadrant Analysis.

DSA article
Discover 2023's best value smart contract auditors: Expert, affordable firms ensuring your blockchain's integrity and security.
DeFi Security Alliance
DeFi Security Alliance guidance
Answers for teams commissioning an audit and security companies considering DSA membership.
Reviewed
A smart contract audit is a scoped review of a specific code version. Reviewers examine access control and state or accounting logic. They also assess external calls and integrations as well as upgrade paths and chain-specific assumptions. A useful report identifies the reviewed scope and commit. It records each finding with its severity and affected code. The report also states the remediation status. See the smart contract audit reports collected by DSA.
No. An audit reduces risk within the agreed scope, but it is not a security guarantee. Code outside the scope, later changes, a deployed version that differs from the reviewed commit, privileged key handling and economic or oracle assumptions may remain outside the review. Before launch, confirm that the deployed code matches the audited version and that reported fixes were retested.
Schedule an audit after the intended release is feature complete and its build instructions, tests and documentation are ready, but before production deployment. Leave enough time to fix findings and complete a remediation review. Significant code changes after the audit may require additional review.
Match the auditor's evidence to your technology and risk profile. Review public reports for experience with your chain and language as well as your protocol type. Look for explicit scopes and commit identifiers. Check the severity definitions and remediation results. Confirm who will review the code and what is excluded. Ask about the schedule and retest terms. Start with the DSA auditor directory.
Send a bounded and reproducible scope. Include the repository and the branch or commit. Identify the contracts in scope as well as the languages and chains. Provide architecture notes and threat assumptions. Include the build or test commands. Describe privileged roles and the deployment plan. Add the preferred review window and any earlier reports. These details help an auditor estimate effort and explain exclusions. You can begin with the audit request form.
There is no reliable flat price for every smart contract audit. Cost depends on scope size and complexity, language and chain, integrations, code maturity, schedule, reviewer count and whether remediation review is included. Compare written proposals by scope, exclusions, deliverables and retest terms instead of headline price alone.
Smart contract security and auditing companies with a verifiable public track record can apply. An application should identify the organization and its technical specializations. It should also link to public audit reports and other relevant security work. Submit the current evidence through the membership application.
Membership status is reviewed annually. DSA can reconsider whether a member's activity and public evidence continue to meet alliance standards. The membership badge identifies the relevant membership year.
DSA does not publish a fixed public membership fee. Request the current terms through the membership application or contact form before relying on any cost assumption.
A member can receive an alliance directory profile and membership badge. Members can share relevant security work and participate in the alliance's knowledge exchange. Available programs and tools can change. Review the current Audit Builder information and contact DSA for the terms that apply to a new member.