Audit Methodology - AegisVault

Our Security Review Process

AegisVault follows a structured, thorough approach to smart contract auditing, designed to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Below is our methodology broken down by phase:

Scoping & Setup

The foundation of every effective audit starts with clear scope definition and proper environment setup.

Key Activities:

Define exact contract boundaries and dependencies
Set up development environment with appropriate tools
Establish test networks and conditions
Document project specifications and intended behaviors

Deliverables:

Scope document with contract addresses/files
Test environment confirmation
Initial risk assessment

Automated Analysis

Leveraging industry-standard and custom tools to identify common vulnerabilities and code patterns.

Tools Utilized:

Slither: Static analysis framework
Mythril: Security analysis tool
Echidna: Fuzzing test framework
Custom scripts for project-specific issues

Vulnerability Categories:

Reentrancy vulnerabilities
Integer overflow/underflow
Access control issues
Gas optimization problems
Compiler version compatibility

Manual Code Review

Detailed line-by-line analysis of code logic, security patterns, and edge cases that automated tools may miss.

Review Focus Areas:

Business logic vulnerabilities
Cross-contract interaction risks
Economic attack vectors
Centralization and trust assumptions
Error handling and edge cases

Methodology:

Control flow analysis
Data flow tracking
State manipulation testing
Privilege escalation attempts
Function-level security assessment

Test Case Development

Creating specific test scenarios to verify vulnerabilities and ensure contract behavior meets specifications.

Testing Approaches:

Unit testing key functions
Integration testing between contracts
Exploit proof-of-concept development
Validation of security assumptions

Frameworks:

Hardhat
Foundry
Truffle
Custom testing environments

Reporting & Remediation

Detailed documentation of findings with clear remediation guidance and follow-up verification.

Report Components:

Executive summary for stakeholders
Detailed technical findings
Severity classifications
Specific remediation recommendations
Code examples for fixes where applicable

Post-Audit Process:

Developer consultation on findings
Verification of implemented fixes
Final security assessment

Vulnerability Severity Classification

We use a standardized severity classification system to help prioritize remediation efforts:

Critical

Vulnerabilities that can lead to direct loss of funds, complete control takeover, or catastrophic protocol failure.

High

Issues that could potentially lead to asset loss, significant protocol disruption, or serious vulnerabilities requiring complex exploitation.

Medium

Vulnerabilities that could cause limited financial damage, temporary protocol disruption, or vulnerabilities requiring specialized conditions.

Low

Issues that represent best practice violations, minor optimizations, or theoretical vulnerabilities with minimal real-world impact.

Informational

Code improvements, documentation suggestions, and non-security-critical optimizations.

Sample Report Structure

1. Executive Summary

Audit scope and objectives
Methodology overview
Summary of findings by severity
Overall security assessment

2. Findings Detail

Individual vulnerability reports
Severity classification
Affected components
Technical description
Exploit scenario
Recommended fixes

3. Codebase Quality Assessment

Code structure evaluation
Testing coverage
Documentation quality
Security best practices adherence

4. Verification Results

Fix implementation status
Verification testing results
Remaining concerns (if any)

Ready to Secure Your Smart Contracts?

Contact us to discuss your project's security needs and how our methodology can be tailored to your specific requirements.

Get in Touch