Provider directory · Technical review not assessed
OpenZeppelin
Review the source evidence before requesting a proposal. Confirm that the assigned team, scope and deliverables match your project.
Official provider website
Evidence and engagement scope
Source check: . A provider statement is attributed information. A confirmed field refers only to the cited artifact.
- Audit networks
- EthereumProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for audit networks
- Audit languages
- Solidity, Rust, CairoProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for audit languages
- Services and methods
- Smart contract audit, Fuzzing, Invariant testing, Fix reviewProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for services and methods
- Protocol types in reviewed reports
- Execution environmentConfirmed in cited evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Types observed in the report examples below, not an exhaustive provider portfolio. Source for protocol types in reviewed reports
- Current pricing
- Request a scoped quote; no current price verifiedInsufficient evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Not established from the public sources checked in this pass. Request current evidence from the provider.
- Availability
- Confirm directly with providerInsufficient evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Not established from the public sources checked in this pass. Request current evidence from the provider.
Public report examples
These observations apply to named scopes and code revisions. They do not establish the safety of a current deployment.
ZKsync OS
Engagement ended: . Source checked .
- Protocol type
- Execution environment
- Scope
- Rust bootloader, basic system and system hooks in matter-labs/zksync-os; the report separates two review parts.
- Code revision
- 96d9d37 (first review part; see the report for the second part)
- Follow-up evidence
- The summary records 22 issues: 16 resolved and one partially resolved; individual entries link remediation updates.
- Limit
- Account-abstraction files are excluded from the first scope. These counts are not a coverage measure or a claim that all issues were closed.
Sources were checked on September 5, 2026. This is a bounded public-source review, not a technical endorsement. Report examples cover named versions only. Confirm the proposed scope, price and available team with the provider.
DSA research and technical review
Read the original evidence review for OpenZeppelin. It includes measurements, primary sources, limitations and a downloadable PDF.
No independent committee assessment or technical score has been issued. The proposed review procedure requires two qualified reviewers, conflict checks, recent relevant reports and supported findings across seven criteria.
What to include in your request
- Code repository, intended revision, chain, language and protocol design.
- High-risk operations, trust assumptions, privileged roles and exclusions.
- Target start, budget, release deadline and required fix-review allowance.
- A request for three recent comparable project reports and the reviewers assigned to your project.