Provider directory · Technical review not assessed
Blaize Security
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
- EVM, NEAR, Solana, Secret Network, Polkadot, Aptos, Sui, Starknet, Internet Computer, CosmosProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. The security FAQ names these environments. A specific report for each environment was not assessed. Source for audit networks
- Audit languages
- Solidity, Vyper, Rust, Move, Cairo, MotokoProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Languages are stated in the audit-services FAQ; team availability is not verified. Source for audit languages
- Services and methods
- Smart contract audit, Source code review, Fuzzing, Formal verificationProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. The provider describes dApp/backend review and offers fuzzing and formal verification on demand. Source for services and methods
- Protocol types in reviewed reports
- Insufficient evidenceInsufficient evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. No protocol-specific report was accepted into this bounded review. This does not establish that none exists.
- 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.
No client report was assessed in this pass. This does not mean the provider has no public reports.
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. No client report was assessed in this pass; the service statements and evidence gaps are listed separately.
DSA research and technical review
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.