Securing the Future
of on-chain Finance

Yes. Our security reviews are structured to generate the documented evidence regulators require. DORA mandates digital operational resilience testing (TLPT) and ICT risk management frameworks. MiCA requires cybersecurity controls and business continuity plans. VARA demands regular independent security assessments. DASP requires documented security policies and evidence of regular testing. Our OpSec Reviews, smart contract audits, and penetration tests produce formal written reports that satisfy these requirements, whether you are seeking authorisation, undergoing regulatory review, or preparing for a competent authority audit.

Security4Web3 is a specialist security consultancy. We work with two distinct audiences: blockchain-native protocols securing their on-chain infrastructure, and institutions exploring or migrating to blockchain services who need to navigate a threat landscape that is partly familiar and partly unlike anything in conventional finance.

Services are delivered through our internal consultancy team and a curated network of specialist partner firms we have rigorously vetted for technical depth, professional standards, and integrity. In a space where it is genuinely difficult to assess who can be trusted, that vetting is part of the value we provide. Across all three security pillars, our focus is prevention before incidents occur.

Our Operational Security Reviews cover private key and seed phrase management, multi-sig wallet configuration, insider threat assessment, social engineering risk, secure key ceremony design, and incident response planning. You receive a full written report with risk ratings and prioritised remediation steps.

A smart contract audit is a deep code review that identifies vulnerabilities in your on-chain logic before deployment: static analysis, business logic flaws, and economic attack surfaces. A penetration test goes further by actively simulating real attacks against your live infrastructure, frontend, APIs, and protocol to find exploitable weaknesses under realistic conditions.

The pattern repeats: institutions underestimate how different on-chain risk is from their existing threat model. Private key compromise is one of the most common failures, often through phishing, insider access, or inadequate custody design, and accounts for the majority of significant losses. The Bybit hack ($1.46B) and Ronin Bridge exploit ($625M) were both rooted in compromised signing keys, not code vulnerabilities. Other recurring failures include insufficient segregation of duties in signing workflows, legacy IT systems connected to on-chain infrastructure, and the absence of full API/RPC security coverage. These are not exotic risks - they are risks which when correctly identified, can be mitigated by robust specialists in each area of the security stack, which is where we come in, with our vetted network of internal security specialists and our partners.

Internal security functions are essential, but on-chain security requires expertise that very few conventional teams possess. Smart contract logic, on-chain transaction finality, decentralised key custody, and DeFi protocol interactions are fundamentally different from the threat surfaces your team is accustomed to reviewing. Beyond capability, there is the question of independence: regulators, counterparties, and boards require third-party assurance that cannot be self-certified. Our reports are structured to provide exactly that — documented, independent evidence of security controls, suitable for regulatory submissions and governance review.

Typically we can begin an initial scoping call within 48 hours of your enquiry. Timelines for full engagements depend on scope. OpSec reviews can be completed in 1–2 weeks, audits and pentests in 2–4 weeks. Reach out via the contact form or Telegram and we'll confirm availability promptly.