Curve Finance Process Quality Review

Score 68%

This is a Curve Finance Process Quality Audit completed on August 2020. It was performed using the Process Audit process (version 0.4) and is documented here. The audit was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the audit is 68%, a pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  1. Here is my smart contract on the blockchain

  2. You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code

  3. Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does

  4. Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract

  5. Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

Disclaimer

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

Executing Code Verification

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets audited and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This audit will answer the questions;

  1. Is the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

  2. Is the code actively being used? (%)

  3. Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

  4. Does the code match a tagged version in the code hosting platform? (%)

  5. Is the software repository healthy? (%)

Is the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The address is at the "?" and then "Contracts" and picked the Compound swap address

They executing code is at Address 0xA2B47E3D5c44877cca798226B7B8118F9BFb7A56 as indicated in the Appendix. This Audit only covers the contract Compound Swap contract which is written in Vyper .

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is in excess of 100 token transfers a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance

100% More than 10 transactions a day

70% More than 10 transactions a week

40% More than 10 transactions a month

10% Less than 10 transactions a month

0% No activity

Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

0xA2B47E3D5c44877cca798226B7B8118F9BFb7A56 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

Does the code match a tagged version on a code hosting platform? (%)

Answer: 80%

Finding the matching code was difficult. There were no releases and the repository had continued development. It was however just one file. I went back to the release date and was able to find the file. Once found the code matched 100%

GitHub address : https://github.com/curvefi/curve-contract

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/curvefi/curve-contract/tree/6f391898e442c06b678a829d13864e7312901d4e/vyper

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Ensure an appropriately labeled tag exists corresponding to deployment dates. Release tags are clearly communicated.

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

Answer: 100%

The repository has over 200 commits and 24 branches as indicated in the Appendix.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

Required questions are;

  1. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

  2. Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

  3. Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

  4. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

  5. Is it possible to trace software requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://www.curve.fi/rootfaq

Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Location: None

Apart from the whitepaper, no explanation of the contracts are visible.

How to improve this score

Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.

Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 0%

With no documentation, there can be no coverage of the code. There is a requirements.txt file, but it only lists tools used to build.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding content to the requirements document such that it comprehensively covers the requirements. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document . Using tools that aid traceability detection will help.

Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 10%

There is very little commenting in the code. Explanatory comments only appear occasionally.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 10% commenting to code.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

Is it possible to trace requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 0%

With no requirements, it is impossible to trace them to code.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding traceability from requirements to code such that it is clear where each requirement is coded. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;

  1. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

  2. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

  3. Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

  4. Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

  5. Report of the results (%)

  6. Formal Verification test done (%)

  7. Stress Testing environment (%)

Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 70%

There is a test suite. There is a 120% test to code ratio, but that only considers the compound swap code and the full package is larger. The test appear to cover functional rather than unit tests.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%

Clearly some amount of coverage was gained from the test that were run, but no test results are available. Score is midfield on assumption of code coverage.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests achieving full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

While there are scripts for environment setup, no scripts for the test environment are evident.

How to improve this score

Add the scripts to the repository and ensure they work. Ask an outsider to create the environment and run the tests. Improve the scripts and docs based on their feedback.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Testing integrated with virtual environment setup script (https://github.com/curvefi/curve-contract/blob/master/install.sh)

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test reports of the test results were evident.

How to improve this score

Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.

Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of Formal Validation tests on this codebase. In their defense, this is still a rare type of test to include.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 40%

Clearly there was a rinkby test network, as evidenced by a script in the repository but there is little other documentation so it is difficult to evaluate if it still in use.

Audits

Answer: 90%

Curve Finance had a security assessment done before deployment (in Jan 2020) and the results were implemented before deployment as per the report. By the standards below, this should give a score of 90%. The duration was just one mam-week but the code base was quite small (506 lines) so this makes logical sense.

  1. Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)

  2. Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)

  3. Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)

  4. No audit performed (20%)

  5. Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this audit is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@caliburnc.com Twitter : @ShinkaRex

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education. It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process. Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.

I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2017 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development.

Process Quality Audits are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.

Career wise I am a business development for an avionics supplier.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Repository Healthy Appendix

Example Code Appendix

# (c) Curve.Fi, 2020
import ERC20m as ERC20m
import cERC20 as cERC20
from vyper.interfaces import ERC20
# Tether transfer-only ABI
contract USDT:
def transfer(_to: address, _value: uint256): modifying
def transferFrom(_from: address, _to: address, _value: uint256): modifying
# This can (and needs to) be changed at compile time
N_COINS: constant(int128) = ___N_COINS___ # <- change
ZERO256: constant(uint256) = 0 # This hack is really bad XXX
ZEROS: constant(uint256[N_COINS]) = ___N_ZEROS___ # <- change
USE_LENDING: constant(bool[N_COINS]) = ___USE_LENDING___
TETHERED: constant(bool[N_COINS]) = ___TETHERED___
FEE_DENOMINATOR: constant(uint256) = 10 ** 10
PRECISION: constant(uint256) = 10 ** 18 # The precision to convert to
PRECISION_MUL: constant(uint256[N_COINS]) = ___PRECISION_MUL___
# PRECISION_MUL: constant(uint256[N_COINS]) = [
# PRECISION / convert(PRECISION, uint256), # DAI
# PRECISION / convert(10 ** 6, uint256), # USDC
# PRECISION / convert(10 ** 6, uint256)] # USDT
admin_actions_delay: constant(uint256) = 3 * 86400
# Events
TokenExchange: event({buyer: indexed(address), sold_id: int128, tokens_sold: uint256, bought_id: int128, tokens_bought: uint256})
TokenExchangeUnderlying: event({buyer: indexed(address), sold_id: int128, tokens_sold: uint256, bought_id: int128, tokens_bought: uint256})
AddLiquidity: event({provider: indexed(address), token_amounts: uint256[N_COINS], fees: uint256[N_COINS], invariant: uint256, token_supply: uint256})
RemoveLiquidity: event({provider: indexed(address), token_amounts: uint256[N_COINS], fees: uint256[N_COINS], token_supply: uint256})
RemoveLiquidityImbalance: event({provider: indexed(address), token_amounts: uint256[N_COINS], fees: uint256[N_COINS], invariant: uint256, token_supply: uint256})
CommitNewAdmin: event({deadline: indexed(timestamp), admin: indexed(address)})
NewAdmin: event({admin: indexed(address)})
CommitNewParameters: event({deadline: indexed(timestamp), A: uint256, fee: uint256, admin_fee: uint256})
NewParameters: event({A: uint256, fee: uint256, admin_fee: uint256})
coins: public(address[N_COINS])
underlying_coins: public(address[N_COINS])
balances: public(uint256[N_COINS])
A: public(uint256) # 2 x amplification coefficient
fee: public(uint256) # fee * 1e10
admin_fee: public(uint256) # admin_fee * 1e10
max_admin_fee: constant(uint256) = 5 * 10 ** 9
owner: public(address)
token: ERC20m
admin_actions_deadline: public(timestamp)
transfer_ownership_deadline: public(timestamp)
future_A: public(uint256)
future_fee: public(uint256)
future_admin_fee: public(uint256)
future_owner: public(address)
kill_deadline: timestamp
kill_deadline_dt: constant(uint256) = 2 * 30 * 86400
is_killed: bool
@public
def __init__(_coins: address[N_COINS], _underlying_coins: address[N_COINS],
_pool_token: address,
_A: uint256, _fee: uint256):
"""
_coins: Addresses of ERC20 conracts of coins (c-tokens) involved
_underlying_coins: Addresses of plain coins (ERC20)
_pool_token: Address of the token representing LP share
_A: Amplification coefficient multiplied by n * (n - 1)
_fee: Fee to charge for exchanges
"""
for i in range(N_COINS):
assert _coins[i] != ZERO_ADDRESS
assert _underlying_coins[i] != ZERO_ADDRESS
self.balances[i] = 0
self.coins = _coins
self.underlying_coins = _underlying_coins
self.A = _A
self.fee = _fee
self.admin_fee = 0
self.owner = msg.sender
self.kill_deadline = block.timestamp + kill_deadline_dt
self.is_killed = False
self.token = ERC20m(_pool_token)

SLOC Appendix

Vyper Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Vyper

1

684

128

50

506

90

Comments to Code 50/ 506 = 10%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Python

10

832

117

94

621

194

Tests to Code 621/ 506 = 123%