SECURE CODE REVIEWS

Find security flaws in critical code before they become systemic risk.

Manual, threat-led review of backend services, security-sensitive libraries, clients, agents, integrations, and infrastructure code, focused on logic, trust boundaries, unsafe assumptions, and exploitability.

Discuss your scope View relevant work

Review surface

Follow input, authority, state, and dependencies through the code.

A security review tracing a critical code path through inputs, authorization, state, dependencies, a finding, and fix verification
  1. 01 Inputs Untrusted data, messages, files, requests, events, and boundary validation.
  2. 02 Identity & authorization Authentication, roles, ownership, delegation, and policy enforcement.
  3. 03 State & business logic Invariants, sequencing, concurrency, retries, accounting, and intended behavior.
  4. 04 Sensitive actions Signing, secrets, payments, configuration, administration, and deployment.
  5. 05 External dependencies Libraries, services, protocols, parsers, cryptography, cloud APIs, and third parties.
  6. 06 Failure & observability Error handling, logging, monitoring, exposure, recovery, and fail-open behavior.

Timing

Review models

Critical component

Review a bounded service, library, client, agent, or subsystem with disproportionate impact.

Critical path

Trace signing, authorization, settlement, recovery, or automation across repositories.

Release or change set

Evaluate a major change, migration, integration, or security-sensitive diff in context.

Process

From critical code paths to verified remediation.

  1. 01

    Bound the critical code

    Confirm repositories, commits, build requirements, integrations, and the components or flows with disproportionate impact.

  2. 02

    Model trust and state

    Trace inputs, identities, privileges, state transitions, dependencies, and conditions the code must preserve.

  3. 03

    Review failure paths

    Manually analyze logic and use targeted testing to validate reachable security failures.

  4. 04

    Report and verify

    Document affected paths and remediation, then verify agreed in-scope fixes.

Outputs / What you receive

Clear findings, practical fixes, and a report your team can use.

Prioritized findings

Affected code paths, impact, evidence, and remediation guidance.

Failure scenarios

Reproduction or exploit context where appropriate.

Technical report

Scope, limitations, methodology, and final status.

Typical engagement team

Who typically leads this work

The exact team depends on the scope. Every engagement has a principal who owns it from scoping through delivery, joined by the specialists the system calls for, and whoever is assigned is named in your proposal.

Timur Güvenkaya portrait

Timur Güvenkaya

Founder & Partner

Led a security engineering practice for Rust and non-EVM systems across Substrate and NEAR. Earlier, built vulnerability-detection engines at Invicti used by Fortune 50 and public-sector organizations.

Piotr Cielas portrait

Piotr Cielas

Principal Advisor

Head of Security at Agora, responsible for security, data protection, and corporate IT risk. Earlier at EY, led assessments across financial services, healthcare, and government.

Currently

Head of Security, Agora

$45B+ in volume

Łukasz Mikuła portrait

Łukasz Mikuła

Specialist Advisor

Offensive security specialist with 10+ years and 100+ public audits across eight ecosystems. At ING and Binance, worked across red teaming, exploit development, infrastructure, and high-scale digital asset systems.

Meet the full team

Inspectable proof

Relevant public work

Each card shows one highlighted finding, not the full result. Open the report for every finding and its severity.

Off-chain Public report

Jump DeFi

Backend & Frontend Security Assessment

Selected public finding Critical

Indexer Crash Due to Invalid UTF-8 Character

  • NEAR
  • Off-chain
  • Rust & TypeScript
View report ↗
Off-chain Public report

Neko / Trove Labs

Airdrop Script Security Review

Selected public finding Medium

Lack of Error Handling in Airdrop Script

  • NEAR
  • Off-chain
  • TypeScript
View report ↗
Pull request Public report

NEAR / Defuse Labs

NEAR Intents Passkeys Pull Request Security Review

Selected public finding Medium

Potential DoS of The Main Functionality Through Malicious Solvers

  • NEAR
  • Passkeys
  • Protocol
View report ↗
View all public reports

FAQ

Questions before scoping

Is this the same as running SAST?

No. Tools can support the work, but the service is a manual review of logic, trust boundaries, state, privilege, integrations, and exploitability.

Which languages do you review?

Support depends on the assigned reviewers and codebase. We confirm languages, frameworks, build requirements, size, and critical components during scoping.

Can you review one critical workflow?

Yes. A critical-path review can be more useful than uniform review when one flow controls funds, privileges, signing, settlement, or recovery.

Should we combine this with a penetration test?

Combine them when both implementation depth and deployed attack-path validation matter.

Related services

Penetration TestingTest the attack paths that connect web, mobile, APIs, cloud, identity, and infrastructure.Smart Contract ReviewsFind flaws in contract logic, permissions, accounting, and upgrades before they put funds at risk.AI & Agent SecurityReview models, data, tools, memory, identity, permissions, approval gates, and high-impact actions.

Next step

Show us the critical code.

Share the repositories, architecture, target commit, build instructions, and the behavior or decision the review must support.

Discuss your scope