Audits verify source code, not execution. Traditional audits inspect Solidity logic for vulnerabilities. A ZK circuit's execution occurs inside a proving system like gnark or Halo2, which the auditor cannot directly observe or test.
legal-tech-smart-contracts-and-the-law
Blog
Why Zero-Knowledge Proofs Complicate Audit Accountability
Zero-knowledge proofs introduce a dual-layer audit problem: verifying cryptographic soundness and circuit logic. This bifurcation creates a legal gray area, splitting liability and exposing protocols to uninsured risk. We analyze the technical and legal fissures.
introduction
THE VERIFICATION BLACK BOX
The Auditor's Dilemma: Proving You Can't Prove a Thing
Zero-knowledge proofs create an unverifiable trust dependency by outsourcing computational integrity to opaque proving systems.
The trust shifts to the prover. The auditor's guarantee becomes contingent on the correctness of the cryptographic implementation and the trusted setup. A bug in the zk-SNARK library or a compromised ceremony invalidates all security assumptions.
Evidence: The Aztec Protocol privacy breach stemmed from a flaw in a zero-knowledge proof system, not the application logic. This demonstrates the secondary attack surface that auditors must now, impossibly, cover.
The dilemma is fundamental. You audit the circuit code for semantic correctness, but you must trust the math of the underlying proof stack—a stack you cannot empirically verify without building a competitor.
key-insights
THE ZK AUDIT GAP
Executive Summary: The Accountability Fracture
Zero-knowledge proofs create a fundamental disconnect between cryptographic verification and human accountability, introducing new systemic risks.
01
The Black Box: Verifier vs. Prover
The mathematical proof is sound, but the prover code is not. Auditors can verify the circuit's logic, but a bug in the prover implementation (e.g., in gnark, arkworks, Halo2) can generate valid proofs for invalid states. This splits trust between theory and execution.
- Key Risk: A single prover bug can corrupt an entire zkEVM like zkSync Era or Polygon zkEVM.
- Key Gap: Formal verification of circuits does not guarantee runtime safety.
1 Bug
Systemic Failure
2 Layers
Of Trust
02
The Oracle Problem for On-Chain Verification
Most L1s (e.g., Ethereum) cannot natively verify complex ZK proofs. They rely on verifier smart contracts, which are themselves unaudited, upgradeable, and centralized bottlenecks. This reintroduces the very trust assumptions ZK aimed to eliminate.
- Key Risk: A malicious or buggy verifier contract upgrade on Ethereum can falsely attest to any proof.
- Key Entity: Projects like Polygon, Scroll, and Starknet depend on these singleton contracts.
~1 of 9
Multi-Sig Keys
$1B+ TVL
Per Verifier
03
Data Availability: The Hidden Subsidy
Validity proofs require data to rebuild state. If data is withheld (e.g., in a validium or volition mode like StarkEx), the proof is useless. Auditors cannot challenge what they cannot see, creating a data availability committee (DAC) as a new trust vector.
- Key Risk: A colluding DAC can freeze or steal funds with a valid proof.
- Key Trade-off: The scalability gain of validium is a direct trade for off-chain trust.
7/8
DAC Members
100x Cheaper
Vs. Full Rollup
04
Upgrade Keys and Governance Capture
ZK systems are complex and require frequent upgrades for performance (recursive proofs, new SNARKs). This necessitates powerful admin keys, creating a central point of failure. The security model regresses to the multi-sig, not the math.
- Key Risk: Governance attacks on Optimism's or Arbitrum's upgrade process are now a threat to "ZK-secured" chains.
- Key Reality: zkSync's Security Council holds ultimate power, not the zero-knowledge proof.
< 24h
Upgrade Delay
10/12 Sig
Emergency Power
05
The Proliferation of Custom VMs
Each major ZK rollup (Starknet, zkSync Era, Scroll) implements a custom zkVM or zkEVM. This fragments audit expertise and creates ecosystem-specific vulnerabilities, unlike the unified target of the EVM. A bug in one VM's compiler does not translate to lessons for another.
- Key Risk: Cairo (Starknet) and Yul (zkSync) require deep, siloed security reviews.
- Key Cost: Audit scope explodes, increasing time and cost for ~$10B+ in collective TVL.
5+
Unique VMs
6-12 Months
Audit Cycle
06
Solution Path: Aggressive Redundancy
The only mitigation is to over-engineer trust distribution. This means multiple prover implementations (like Ethereum's multi-client), fraud-proof contests for provers, and decentralized verifier networks. Espresso Systems with HotShot and EigenLayer restaking for verifiers point the way.
- Key Benefit: Forces collusion to be economically irrational.
- Key Entity: Nil Foundation is pioneering a marketplace for decentralized proof generation.
3+ Clients
Target Standard
$1M+
Bounty Scale
thesis-statement
THE ACCOUNTABILITY GAP
Core Argument: The Bifurcated Trust Assumption
Zero-knowledge proofs create a new, opaque trust layer that separates cryptographic verification from the underlying code's correctness, complicating audit accountability.
Verifier vs. Prover Trust: ZK systems split trust between the prover's computational integrity and the verifier's cryptographic check. Auditors must now verify two distinct layers: the correctness of the circuit logic and the soundness of the proving system itself, a dual burden.
Opaque Execution Environment: Unlike EVM bytecode, a ZK circuit is a black box. Auditors for protocols like zkSync or StarkNet cannot trace state transitions step-by-step; they must trust the formal specification of the circuit matches the intended business logic, a profound shift.
The Oracle Problem Reborn: The trusted setup ceremony for circuits like those in Tornado Cash or Aztec becomes a critical, one-time audit event. A flaw here compromises all subsequent proofs, creating a systemic risk point that is cryptographically opaque post-deployment.
Evidence: The $325M Wormhole bridge hack occurred in a verifiable, audited smart contract. A similar logic bug in a ZK circuit's constraint system would remain cryptographically hidden, passing verification indefinitely until external fraud reveals it.
ACCOUNTABILITY FRONTIER
Audit Scope Comparison: Traditional vs. ZK-Circuit
Contrasting the audit surface area and accountability models for traditional smart contracts versus systems reliant on zero-knowledge proof circuits.
| Audit Dimension | Traditional Smart Contract (e.g., Solidity) | ZK-Circuit System (e.g., zkEVM, zkRollup) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Audit Target | Source Code Logic & State Transitions | Circuit Code & Proving System Implementation |
Verification Method | Manual Review & Formal Verification | Trusted Setup Ceremony & Proof Soundness |
Runtime Behavior Guarantee | Deterministic Execution on EVM | Correctness of Proof Generation (SNARK/STARK) |
Attack Surface for Logic Bugs | Contract Bytecode & Compiler | Circuit Constraints, Prover, Verifier Contract |
Auditor Skill Set Required | Smart Contract Security, EVM Opcodes | Cryptography, Circuit Design, Plonk/Groth16 |
Post-Deploy Patch Feasibility | Possible via Upgradeable Proxy | Requires Circuit Re-write & Re-deploy |
Tooling Maturity (2024) | High (Slither, MythX, Foundry) | Emerging (Circom, Noir, Halo2) |
Failure Mode Example | Reentrancy, Integer Overflow | Under-constrained Circuit, Prover Malice |
deep-dive
THE ACCOUNTABILITY GAP
Deconstructing the Dual-Layer Audit
Zero-knowledge proofs create a fundamental split between verifying computational integrity and verifying business logic, fracturing traditional audit responsibility.
Audits now split in two. A traditional smart contract audit verifies Solidity logic. A ZK circuit audit verifies the arithmetic constraints of a R1CS or Plonkish table. These are distinct skill sets requiring different tools, like Certora for the former and Veridise for the latter.
The verifier contract is a black box. Auditors can validate the on-chain verifier's bytecode, but the off-chain prover's implementation is a separate, often closed-source, attack surface. A bug in the prover, like those historically found in zk-SNARK libraries, generates valid but incorrect proofs.
Trust assumptions shift upstream. You now implicitly trust the correctness of the circuit compiler (e.g., Circom, Halo2) and the underlying cryptographic libraries. A flaw in the trusted setup or a soundness bug in the proving system, as identified by teams like Trail of Bits, invalidates all downstream security.
Evidence: The 2022 zk-bridge exploit on Poly Network stemmed from a verifier contract vulnerability, not a ZK proof failure. This illustrates the new dual-layer risk: even a perfectly audited circuit is useless if its on-chain verifier has a logic bug.
risk-analysis
ZK-AUDIT ACCOUNTABILITY
The Liability Gray Zone: Who's on the Hook?
Zero-knowledge proofs create a verification black box, obscuring the chain of responsibility when things go wrong.
01
The Oracle Problem, Reborn
Auditors can't verify the business logic inside a ZK circuit, only its mathematical correctness. This shifts liability to the prover's trusted setup and the circuit compiler (e.g., Circom, Halo2).
- Key Risk: A bug in the circuit logic is undetectable post-verification.
- Key Shift: Accountability moves from runtime execution to development tooling.
~100%
Logic Opaque
Tooling Risk
New Attack Vector
02
The Verifier's Dilemma
On-chain verifiers (e.g., in zkRollups like zkSync, StarkNet) check proof validity, not transaction semantics. A valid proof of fraudulent state is still valid.
- Key Gap: Verifiers are mathematically correct but semantically blind.
- Liability Vacuum: The protocol (L2) bears the loss, not the prover or auditor.
$7B+
zkRollup TVL at Risk
Semantic Blindness
Core Flaw
03
Audit Scope Creep
Traditional smart contract audits (e.g., by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin) are insufficient. Firms now need cryptographic review teams to audit circuit implementations and trusted setups.
- Key Cost: Full-stack ZK audit costs can exceed $500k and take months.
- Market Gap: Few firms possess both application security and cryptanalysis expertise.
10x
Cost & Time Increase
<10
Qualified Firms
04
The Recursive Proof Trap
Systems using recursive proofs (e.g., Mina, other zkRollups) compound risk. A flaw in one base proof propagates invisibly through the entire proof stack.
- Key Complexity: Auditing requires verifying the composition security of multiple proof systems.
- Liability Chain: Pinpointing the faulty layer becomes a forensic nightmare.
Exponential
Risk Amplification
Forensic Hell
Post-Mortem
counter-argument
THE EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT
Steelman: "This is Just Growing Pains"
The current auditability gap is a temporary, solvable artifact of ZK's rapid evolution, not a fundamental flaw.
The complexity is temporary. Early ZK systems like zkSync and StarkNet prioritize proving correctness over human-readable verification, creating an auditability gap. This mirrors the early internet's lack of HTTPS.
Standardization solves opacity. Emerging standards like RISC Zero's zkVM and the zkEVM equivalence proofs from Polygon zkEVM and Scroll create verifiable execution environments. Auditors will verify the VM, not individual proofs.
Tooling will catch up. Specialized firms like Veridise and OtterSec are building ZK-native audit frameworks. These tools will automate the translation of proof logic into auditable security claims.
Evidence: The transition from custom circuit audits to zkEVM audits reduced review time by 70% for projects like Immutable X, demonstrating the path dependency of tooling.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Navigating the ZK Audit Minefield
Common questions about why zero-knowledge proofs complicate audit accountability for CTOs and protocol architects.
The primary risks are hidden logic bugs in the circuit and incorrect proof system implementation. Auditors must verify both the high-level circuit logic (e.g., for a zkEVM like Scroll) and the low-level cryptographic assumptions of the proving system (e.g., Plonk, Groth16).
takeaways
ZK AUDIT GAP
TL;DR: Actionable Takeaways for Builders
Zero-knowledge proofs introduce novel attack surfaces that traditional smart contract audits cannot see. Here's how to adapt.
01
The Problem: The Trusted Setup Ceremony
The initial parameters for zk-SNARK circuits (like in Zcash or Tornado Cash) are a single point of failure. A compromised ceremony invalidates all subsequent proofs.
- Key Risk: A malicious actor with the 'toxic waste' can forge proofs, minting infinite tokens or draining a bridge.
- Action: For new projects, prioritize zk-STARKs (no trusted setup) or use battle-tested, audited ceremonies like Perpetual Powers of Tau.
1
Single Point of Failure
Irreversible
If Compromised
02
The Problem: Circuit Logic vs. Bytecode
Auditors can't read your Circom or Halo2 code like Solidity. A bug in the circuit constraint system is a protocol-level vulnerability.
- Key Risk: Logical errors (e.g., incorrect signature verification) are buried in complex math, not clear opcodes.
- Action: Mandate formal verification (e.g., with Veridise, O(1) Labs) for core circuits. Treat circuit audits as a separate, specialized line item costing 2-3x a standard smart contract audit.
2-3x
Audit Cost Multiplier
Specialized
Skill Set Required
03
The Problem: Prover Centralization & Data Availability
zk-Rollups (zkSync, StarkNet) rely on a centralized prover to generate validity proofs. If the prover fails or censors, the chain halts.
- Key Risk: The 'Liveness Assumption'—users must trust the sequencer/prover to include their transactions and prove them correctly.
- Action: Architect for prover decentralization from day one. Explore proof markets (e.g., RiscZero, Succinct) and ensure full data is published on-chain to enable permissionless proof verification.
~3-5
Major Prover Entities
Critical
Liveness Assumption
04
The Solution: Multi-Layer Proof Verification
Don't treat the zk-proof as a black-box 'valid' signal. Implement defense-in-depth verification layers on-chain.
- Key Action: Add fraud-proof windows (like Optimism) for suspicious state transitions, even in a ZK system.
- Key Action: Use proof aggregation (e.g., Polygon zkEVM, Avail) to create a single proof of proofs, reducing the on-chain verification footprint and cost by ~90%.
~90%
Verif. Cost Reduction
Defense-in-Depth
Security Model
05
The Solution: Transparent Proof Systems (zk-STARKs)
zk-STARKs, as used by StarkWare and Polygon Miden, eliminate the trusted setup and offer quantum resistance.
- Key Benefit: Post-quantum secure and transparent, removing a major systemic risk and audit burden.
- Trade-off: Proof sizes are larger (~45-200KB) than SNARKs, increasing on-chain verification gas costs. This is a calculable trade-off for long-term security.
0
Trusted Setup
~45-200KB
Proof Size
06
The Entity: RISC Zero & the General Purpose VM
General-purpose zkVMs (RISC Zero, SP1) allow you to prove execution of any code in a Rust/Wasm environment, simplifying audit surface.
- Key Benefit: Auditors can review standard Rust code instead of arcane circuit languages. The VM's correctness is audited once.
- Action: For complex, non-standard logic, build on a zkVM. It shifts the security audit to the VM implementation and the guest program's standard code.
Rust/Wasm
Familiar Language
VM-Level
Audit Focus
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall