P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
DFYN Process Quality Review
Score: 56%

Overview

This is a DFYN Process Quality Review completed on June 21st 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.2) and is documented here. The review was performed by of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 56%, a close fail. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
    Here are my smart contracts on the blockchain
    Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
    Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
    Here are the audit(s) performed on my code by third party experts
    Here are the admin controls and strategies

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, token, 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. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. 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.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Chain

This section indicates the blockchain used by this protocol.
Chain: Polygon
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon

Code and Team

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This review will answer the questions;
1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%) 2) Is the code actively being used? (%) 3) Is there a public software repository? (Y/N) 4) Is there a development history visible? (%) 5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%
They are available at website https://docs.dfyn.network/technical/contracts as indicated in the Appendix.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc 20% Address found but labelling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

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

Answer: 100%
Activity is 3500 transactions a day on contract UniSwapV2Router02, 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

3) Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but normally test and scripts also (Y/N). Even if the repo was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a Yes. For teams with private repos, this answer is No.

4) Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 0%
With 5 commits and 2 branches, this is an unhealthy software repository.
This checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
Guidance: 100% Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches 70% Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches 50% Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches 30% Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches 0% Less than 2 branches or less than 10 commits

How to improve this score

Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools. A public development history indicates clearly to the public the level of continued investment and activity by the developers on the application. This gives a level of security and faith in the application.

5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
Team info can be found on page 30 of https://dfyn.network/assets/docs/Dfyn-Litepaper.pdf.
For a yes in this question the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation. If the team is anonymous and then this question is a No.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: No
No basic software function documentation was found in their Litepaper, GitHub, or GitBooks.

How to improve this score

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

8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 0%
No software documentation was found in their Litepaper, GitHub, or GitBooks.
Guidance:
100% All contracts and functions documented 80% Only the major functions documented 79-1% Estimate of the level of software documentation 0% No software documentation

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.

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

Answer: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 6%% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Guidance: 100% CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code 90-70% CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code 60-20% CtC > 20 Some useful commenting 0% CtC < 20 No useful commenting

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.

10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 0%
No software documentation was founds, and therefore code implementation traceability is non-existent.
Guidance: 100% Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code 60% Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability 40% Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions 0% No connection between documentation and 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;
11) Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%) 12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%) 13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N) 14) Report of the results (%) 15) Formal Verification test done (%) 16) Stress Testing environment (%)

11) Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 80%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 85% testing to code (TtC).
This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.
Guidance: 100% TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible 80% TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible 40% TtC < 80% Some tests visible 0% No tests obvious

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.

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

Answer: 50%
No evidence of code coverage was found in their audit or GitHub repository.
Guidance: 100% Documented full coverage 99-51% Value of test coverage from documented results 50% No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests 30% Some tests evident but not complete 0% No test for coverage seen

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.

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

Answer: Yes
Instructions to run tests can be found at the bottom of https://github.com/dfyn/dfyn-exchange.

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No test report was found in their GitHub repository.
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub Code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

How to improve this score

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

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
No evidence of a DFYN formal verification was found in their documentation or on the web.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is evidence of DFYN using the Router testnet network at https://docs.dfyn.network/current-status#routers-cross-chain-liquidity-protocol-xclp.

Security

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 90%
Note: Audit does not state that any of the proposed fixes were implemented.
Note 2: DFYN's Phase 1 farming release date could not be found anywhere, but we can assume it's before May as that is when they released Phase 2.
Note 3: DFYN was released in December 2020.
Guidance: 100% Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 90% Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 70% Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50% Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented 20% No audit performed 0% Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, question

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%
There is a "report bug" function in their "Get Involved" section on their website that is referred to as a bug bounty. However, the link leads to an email you send to them and there is no other available bug bounty information in any of their documentation.
Guidance:
100% Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below) 90% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program 80% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k 70% Bounty is 100k or over AND active program 60% Bounty is 100k or over 50% Bounty is 50k or over AND active program 40% Bounty is 50k or over 20% Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k 0% No bug bounty program offered
Active program means a third party actively driving hackers to the site. Inactive program would be static mention on the docs.

Access Controls

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document. The questions this section asks are as follow;
19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the admin controls? 20) Is the information clear and complete? 2`) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments? 22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests?

19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 0%
No admin control information was found in their Litepaper or GitBooks.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled 20% Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled 0% Admin Control information could not be found

20) Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 0%
No information at all, other than the fact that users can vote on contract upgrades. However, this is not a clear statement that the DFYN contracts are upgradeable.
Guidance: All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

How to improve this score

Create a document that covers the items described above. An example is enclosed.

21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 0%
No admin control info was found in any of their documentation.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software l language 30% Description all in software specific language 0% No admin control information could not be found

How to improve this score

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%
No pause control info or tests were found in any of their documentation.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months 80% Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests 40% Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests 0% Pause control not documented or explained

How to improve this score

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] Twitter : @defisafety
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 2018 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 Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.
DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

1
contract UniswapV2Router02 is IUniswapV2Router02 {
2
using SafeMathUniswap for uint;
3
4
address public immutable override factory;
5
address public immutable override WETH;
6
7
modifier ensure(uint deadline) {
8
require(deadline >= block.timestamp, 'UniswapV2Router: EXPIRED');
9
_;
10
}
11
12
constructor(address _factory, address _WETH) public {
13
factory = _factory;
14
WETH = _WETH;
15
}
16
17
receive() external payable {
18
assert(msg.sender == WETH); // only accept ETH via fallback from the WETH contract
19
}
20
21
// **** ADD LIQUIDITY ****
22
function _addLiquidity(
23
address tokenA,
24
address tokenB,
25
uint amountADesired,
26
uint amountBDesired,
27
uint amountAMin,
28
uint amountBMin
29
) internal virtual returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
30
// create the pair if it doesn't exist yet
31
if (IUniswapV2Factory(factory).getPair(tokenA, tokenB) == address(0)) {
32
IUniswapV2Factory(factory).createPair(tokenA, tokenB);
33
}
34
(uint reserveA, uint reserveB) = UniswapV2Library.getReserves(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
35
if (reserveA == 0 && reserveB == 0) {
36
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBDesired);
37
} else {
38
uint amountBOptimal = UniswapV2Library.quote(amountADesired, reserveA, reserveB);
39
if (amountBOptimal <= amountBDesired) {
40
require(amountBOptimal >= amountBMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
41
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBOptimal);
42
} else {
43
uint amountAOptimal = UniswapV2Library.quote(amountBDesired, reserveB, reserveA);
44
assert(amountAOptimal <= amountADesired);
45
require(amountAOptimal >= amountAMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
46
(amountA, amountB) = (amountAOptimal, amountBDesired);
47
}
48
}
49
}
50
function addLiquidity(
51
address tokenA,
52
address tokenB,
53
uint amountADesired,
54
uint amountBDesired,
55
uint amountAMin,
56
uint amountBMin,
57
address to,
58
uint deadline
59
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB, uint liquidity) {
60
(amountA, amountB) = _addLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, amountADesired, amountBDesired, amountAMin, amountBMin);
61
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
62
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenA, msg.sender, pair, amountA);
63
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenB, msg.sender, pair, amountB);
64
liquidity = IUniswapV2Pair(pair).mint(to);
65
}
66
function addLiquidityETH(
67
address token,
68
uint amountTokenDesired,
69
uint amountTokenMin,
70
uint amountETHMin,
71
address to,
72
uint deadline
73
) external virtual override payable ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH, uint liquidity) {
74
(amountToken, amountETH) = _addLiquidity(
75
token,
76
WETH,
77
amountTokenDesired,
78
msg.value,
79
amountTokenMin,
80
amountETHMin
81
);
82
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, token, WETH);
83
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(token, msg.sender, pair, amountToken);
84
IWETH(WETH).deposit{value: amountETH}();
85
assert(IWETH(WETH).transfer(pair, amountETH));
86
liquidity = IUniswapV2Pair(pair).mint(to);
87
// refund dust eth, if any
88
if (msg.value > amountETH) TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(msg.sender, msg.value - amountETH);
89
}
90
91
// **** REMOVE LIQUIDITY ****
92
function removeLiquidity(
93
address tokenA,
94
address tokenB,
95
uint liquidity,
96
uint amountAMin,
97
uint amountBMin,
98
address to,
99
uint deadline
100
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
101
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
102
IUniswapV2Pair(pair).transferFrom(msg.sender, pair, liquidity); // send liquidity to pair
103
(uint amount0, uint amount1) = IUniswapV2Pair(pair).burn(to);
104
(address token0,) = UniswapV2Library.sortTokens(tokenA, tokenB);
105
(amountA, amountB) = tokenA == token0 ? (amount0, amount1) : (amount1, amount0);
106
require(amountA >= amountAMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
107
require(amountB >= amountBMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
108
}
109
function removeLiquidityETH(
110
address token,
111
uint liquidity,
112
uint amountTokenMin,
113
uint amountETHMin,
114
address to,
115
uint deadline
116
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH) {
117
(amountToken, amountETH) = removeLiquidity(
118
token,
119
WETH,
120
liquidity,
121
amountTokenMin,
122
amountETHMin,
123
address(this),
124
deadline
125
);
126
TransferHelper.safeTransfer(token, to, amountToken);
127
IWETH(WETH).withdraw(amountETH);
128
TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(to, amountETH);
129
}
130
function removeLiquidityWithPermit(
131
address tokenA,
132
address tokenB,
133
uint liquidity,
134
uint amountAMin,
135
uint amountBMin,
136
address to,
137
uint deadline,
138
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
139
) external virtual override returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
140
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
141
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
142
IUniswapV2Pair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
143
(amountA, amountB) = removeLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, liquidity, amountAMin, amountBMin, to, deadline);
144
}
145
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermit(
146
address token,
147
uint liquidity,
148
uint amountTokenMin,
149
uint amountETHMin,
150
address to,
151
uint deadline,
152
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
153
) external virtual override returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH) {
154
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, token, WETH);
155
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
156
IUniswapV2Pair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
157
(amountToken, amountETH) = removeLiquidityETH(token, liquidity, amountTokenMin, amountETHMin, to, deadline);
158
}
159
160
// **** REMOVE LIQUIDITY (supporting fee-on-transfer tokens) ****
161
function removeLiquidityETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
162
address token,
163
uint liquidity,
164
uint amountTokenMin,
165
uint amountETHMin,
166
address to,
167
uint deadline
168
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountETH) {
169
(, amountETH) = removeLiquidity(
170
token,
171
WETH,
172
liquidity,
173
amountTokenMin,
174
amountETHMin,
175
address(this),
176
deadline
177
);
178
TransferHelper.safeTransfer(token, to, IERC20Uniswap(token).balanceOf(address(this)));
179
IWETH(WETH).withdraw(amountETH);
180
TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(to, amountETH);
181
}
182
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermitSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
183
address token,
184
uint liquidity,
185
uint amountTokenMin,
186
uint amountETHMin,
187
address to,
188
uint deadline,
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
17
1260
127
59
1074
106
Comments to Code 59/1074 = 6%%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
6
1082
153
13
916
22
Tests to Code 916/1074 = 85%
Last modified 3mo ago