Provider directory · Technical review not assessed
Cyberscope
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
- Ethereum, BNB Chain, Polygon, SolanaProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for audit networks
- Audit languages
- Solidity, RustProvider 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, Penetration testing, Formal verification, MonitoringProvider 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
- SPL token account utilityConfirmed 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.
Unclaimed SOL
Initial audit: . Source checked .
- Protocol type
- SPL token account utility
- Scope
- lib.rs in the unclaimed-sol-close-token-program repository; Solana token burning and account closure.
- Code revision
- ddfc570b1a21e2a2ae0a59eca11d0aca0f455241
- Follow-up evidence
- This version lists one medium and six minor/informative findings as unresolved. Only an initial audit date is listed.
- Limit
- This is a dated report version, not a claim about whether the project later fixed or deployed the code.
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
Cyberscope analysis: report evidence and historical limits
This provider has a structured source record. A dedicated original technical dossier has not yet been completed. See the directory-wide evidence study for the source-check method and limitations.
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.