By Chain

Chains share patterns, but execution models don’t. “Generic audit” misses chain-specific footguns. We adapt threat models to the chain’s runtime, account model, and tooling reality.

What we cover

  • Chain runtime and transaction model differences

  • Account/storage semantics and authority patterns

  • Program/contract upgrade and deployment flows

  • Cross-chain messaging, bridges, and relays

  • Token standards and edge behaviors

  • Monitoring and operational security assumptions

Common Failure Modes

EVM-family chain specifics

EVM-family chain specifics

  • Upgradeability misconfiguration and initializer risk
  • Delegatecall/proxy boundary mistakes
  • MEV-exposure and sequencing assumptions
Solana/Sealevel specifics

Solana/Sealevel specifics

  • Authority and account ownership validation gaps
  • PDA derivation misuse and signer confusion
  • CPI trust issues and program-to-program attack chains
Move-family specifics

Move-family specifics

  • Capability leakage and resource safety assumptions
  • Object ownership confusion and authorization gaps
  • Unsafe entrypoint design and privilege boundaries

How we work

01

Chain model

Chain model

define what “authority” truly means on this chain

02

Threat model

Threat model

chain-native abuse paths and invariants

03

Manual review

Manual review

the logic + the runtime assumptions

04

Chain-native testing

Chain-native testing

harnesses that match real execution

05

Report

Report

findings tied to chain-specific exploitability

Tools and Standards

Core Tooling

  • EVM: Foundry-centric workflows
  • Deep security validation via fuzz/symbolic/formal where useful
  • Testing discipline aligned to “properties first” audit practice
  • Threat modeling supported by ATT&CK mindset (where applicable)

Supported chain list placement

  • Keep as a design-owned component (tag list), not body text
PortswiggerGithubMitreOWASP

What we map to

  • Chain-specific safety properties
  • Integration risk across bridges and relayers
Background

Deliverables

Securing High-Impact Enterprise System

What Our Clients Trust us with

Client Video
▶

We partnered with ImmuneBytes for a security audit of our products. Their expertise and professionalism instilled confidence throughout the process. They promptly addressed our questions, and their thorough analysis significantly enhanced our project's security, safeguarding our users' assets. We highly recommend ImmuneBytes and look forward to future collaborations.

Aruje Jahan

Lokr, Product Owner

ImmuneBytes demonstrated the perfect blend of expertise, commitment, and accountability, resulting in an audit that surpassed expectations. Their thorough approach and dedication ensured a high-quality outcome, reflecting their capability and professionalism in delivering exceptional service.

Dheeraj Borra

Stader Labs, Co-Founder

Robots can do audits, but the personal touch makes a difference. That's why we love Immunebytes! Not only do they do top-class audits, but they also take the time to understand our project and why certain things are done in specific ways. They take the time to ensure we feel heard, which shows in their work.

Yog Shrusti

Farmsent, Co-Founder & CEO

We are thoroughly impressed by their team, who left no scope for a communication gap and provided a quick turnaround time. They took up each requirement with utmost detail and acted on it. It was a pleasing experience to work with you. Looking to working with you guys again!

Mac P

Ethernity, Chief Engineer

What You Need to Know?

Frequently Asked Questions

Different blockchains have unique execution models, account structures, and failure modes. An EVM audit checklist won’t work for Solana’s account model or Move’s resource safety. We tailor our threat model to match each chain’s real attack surface.

Generic audits often miss chain-specific risks such as Solana PDA derivation issues, Move capability leakage, or Cosmos IBC message handling flaws. If you're building outside Ethereum, you need auditors who understand that chain’s runtime behavior.

Example: Solana processes transactions differently than EVM—no global state, account-based execution, CPI trust assumptions. A vulnerability that's impossible on Ethereum might be trivial on Solana, and vice versa.

EVM-family (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base) Solana/Sealevel Cosmos SDK Polkadot/Substrate Move-based (Aptos, Sui) Custom chains (if you share runtime specs)

EVM uses ERC-20/721/1155. Solana uses SPL tokens. Move has object-based ownership. Each has different security assumptions: reentrancy matters on EVM, authority validation matters on Solana, capability leakage matters on Move.

If you're deploying on non-EVM chains, or if your EVM contracts make unusual use of chain features (create2, delegatecall, precompiles), chain-specific expertise matters. Otherwise, standard smart contract audits suffice

Secure Systems

Let’s Evaluate Risks and Secure your Systems

+917303699708team@immunebytes.com
Immunebytes

A blockchain security audit firm with the goal of making the Web3 space more secure through innovative and effective solutions.

Services

Quick Links

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Powered by  Finessse Digital

©2026 ImmuneBytes. All Rights Reserved