Sui Move Auditing
What's left to audit when the compiler already prevents 5 of the OWASP Smart Contract Top 10?
Move eliminates re-entrancy, asset duplication, and unchecked access control by construction. The audit surface is different — not "find the reentrancy bug" but "verify the business logic and economic invariants."
What the Compiler Prevents
| Vulnerability | EVM (Solidity) | Move (Sui) | Eliminated? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Re-entrancy | Manual guards (OpenZeppelin) | No recursive calls by design | Yes |
| Asset duplication | Manual balance management | Linear types — move only, never copy | Yes |
| Integer overflow | Auto-checked since 0.8 | Always checked at bytecode verifier | Yes |
| Access control | Modifier conventions | Capability objects (compiler-enforced) | Yes |
| Dangling references | N/A | Borrow checker | Yes |
What Still Needs Auditing
| Risk | Example | Our Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Business logic | Cart price exceeds intent budget in mandate module | Tested (mandate_tests.move) |
| Economic invariants | Attribution percentages must sum to 100 | Proved (tokenomics_validation) |
| State machine correctness | Device lifecycle transitions (Active → Maintenance → Decommissioned) | Coded (device_registry) |
| Permission escalation | Admin capability transfer or theft | Capability pattern prevents |
| Oracle trust | Precision agriculture relies on sensor data quality | Architectural — not code-level |
Our Testing
| Module | Test Coverage | Technique |
|---|---|---|
| collision | 644 lines, 30+ scenarios | Quality scoring, spam detection monotonicity, value attribution |
| tokenomics_validation | 80 lines | Property-based economic proofs with 1M token pools |
| mandate | 95 lines | Happy path: intent → cart → approval flow |
| test_framework | 437 lines | Reusable property generators for all modules |
Verification Tools
| Tool | What It Does | Maturity |
|---|---|---|
| Move Prover | Formal verification of invariants | Production (built into toolchain) |
| Sui Prover | Extended formal verification (open-sourced 2025) | Production |
| Belobog | Fuzzing for Move contracts | Growing |
sui move test | Unit + integration testing in Move | Production |
Move Prover is the differentiator. Formal verification is built into the toolchain — not a $50K+ audit add-on.
What Goes Here
Pages in this directory document security patterns, vulnerability analysis, Move Prover examples, and testing strategies. Equivalent to EVM Auditing in the EVM section.
Context
- Sui Development — Security patterns and capability pattern
- EVM Auditing — Solidity security for comparison
- Smart Contract Comparison — Safety — Cross-platform vulnerability matrix
- Crypto Problems — What keeps going wrong and why
Questions
If Move eliminates the vulnerability classes that caused $325M in losses in 2025, where does the remaining audit spend go — and is that spend justified by the business logic risk?