Dracula Protocol Process Quality Review

Score: 47%

This is a Dracula Protocol Process Quality Review completed on 14 October 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 47%, an almost pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

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.

  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 reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This review will answer the questions;

  1. Are 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? (%)

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

Answer: Yes.

I found the Executing Code Addresses in the ReadMe of the GitHub.

They are available at Address 0xD12d68Fd52b54908547ebC2Cd77Ec6EbbEfd3099 as indicated in the Appendix. This review only covers the contract MasterVampire.sol.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 1500 transactions 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

0xD12d68Fd52b54908547ebC2Cd77Ec6EbbEfd3099 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

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

Answer: 60%

Guidance:

100% All code matches and Repository was clearly labelled 60 % All code matches but no labelled repository. Repository was found manually 30% Almost all code does match perfectly and repository was found manually 0% Most matching Code could not be found

GitHub address : https://github.com/Dracula-Protocol

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/Dracula-Protocol/contracts

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: 0%

This Github is 4 days old and has only 5 commits, and only 1 Branch.

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools.

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://medium.com/@DraculaProtocol/the-dracula-protocol-919a80fcb09

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

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

Answer: No

No Documentation was found in the website or the Repo.

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

Answer: 30%

There is a 3 paragraph protocol design, as well as a graph and a short step-by-step explanation. However, none of the functions are properly documented.

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: 20%

Most of the origional code is very lightly commented. Except for the Bat, which is quite well done. The high code commenting score comes mostly from the libraries.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 59% 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, there can be no tracability.

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;

  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: 0%

There are no tests or test directories evident in the GitHub.

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: 0%

Because there are no tests, there can be no code coverage.

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.

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

Answer: No

No scripts 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: No

There's nothing to package.

How to improve this score

Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No report was 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%

No evidence of Formal Verification Tests.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of test networks was found.

Audits

Answer: 70%

On the 16th of October, just as I was about to publish this report an audit/review was published; https://github.com/valo/publications/blob/cdda80e28a9462dc1761c214f18ee247ee682a0e/Smart%20Contract%20Reviews/Dracula%20Protocol/Dracula%20Protocol%20Security%20Review.md

While the author admits it is not a full audit, it covers many important points and references important sushiswap docs and audits. No major weaknesses were found and as per guidance below a score of 70% as it was performed after deployment.

Guidance:

  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 OR smart contract address' not found, question 1 (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@defisafety.com 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.

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

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

contract MasterVampire is Ownable, Timelock {
using SafeMath for uint256;
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
using VampireAdapter for Victim;
struct UserInfo {
uint256 amount;
uint256 rewardDebt;
}
struct PoolInfo {
Victim victim;
uint256 victimPoolId;
uint256 rewardPerBlock;
uint256 lastRewardBlock;
uint256 accDrcPerShare;
uint256 rewardDrainModifier;
uint256 wethDrainModifier;
}
// (_ _)
// /\ /\
// / \'._ (\_/) _.'/ \
// /_.''._'--('.')--'_.''._\
// | \_ / `;=/ " \=;` \ _/ |
// \/ `\__|`\___/`|__/` \/
// jgs` \(/|\)/ `
// " ` "
DraculaToken public dracula;
IERC20 weth;
IUniswapV2Pair drcWethPair;
address public drainAddress;
address public poolRewardUpdater;
address public devAddress;
uint256 public constant DEV_FEE = 8;
uint256 public constant REWARD_START_BLOCK = 11008888; // Wed Oct 07 2020 13:28:00 UTC
uint256 poolRewardLimiter;
PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
mapping (uint256 => mapping (address => UserInfo)) public userInfo;
event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
event Withdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
event EmergencyWithdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
modifier onlyDev() {
require(devAddress == _msgSender(), "not dev");
_;
}
modifier onlyRewardUpdater() {
require(poolRewardUpdater == _msgSender(), "not reward updater");
_;
}
constructor(
DraculaToken _dracula,
address _drainAddress
) public Timelock(msg.sender, 24 hours) {
poolRewardLimiter = 300 ether;
dracula = _dracula;
drainAddress = _drainAddress;
devAddress = msg.sender;
weth = IERC20(0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2);
IUniswapV2Factory uniswapFactory = IUniswapV2Factory(0x5C69bEe701ef814a2B6a3EDD4B1652CB9cc5aA6f);
drcWethPair = IUniswapV2Pair(uniswapFactory.getPair(address(weth), address(dracula)));
}
function poolLength() external view returns (uint256) {
return poolInfo.length;
}
function add(Victim _victim, uint256 _victimPoolId, uint256 _rewardPerBlock, uint256 _rewardDrainModifier, uint256 _wethDrainModifier) public onlyOwner {
require(_rewardPerBlock <= poolRewardLimiter, "Pool reward per block is too high");
poolInfo.push(PoolInfo({
victim: _victim,
victimPoolId: _victimPoolId,
rewardPerBlock: _rewardPerBlock,
rewardDrainModifier: _rewardDrainModifier,
wethDrainModifier: _wethDrainModifier,
lastRewardBlock: block.number < REWARD_START_BLOCK ? REWARD_START_BLOCK : block.number,
accDrcPerShare: 0
}));
}
function updatePoolRewardLimiter(uint256 _poolRewardLimiter) public onlyOwner {
poolRewardLimiter = _poolRewardLimiter;
}
function updateRewardPerBlock(uint256 _pid, uint256 _rewardPerBlock) public onlyRewardUpdater {
require(_rewardPerBlock <= poolRewardLimiter, "Pool reward per block is too high");
updatePool(_pid);
poolInfo[_pid].rewardPerBlock = _rewardPerBlock;
}
function updateRewardPerBlockMassive(uint256[] memory pids, uint256[] memory rewards) public onlyRewardUpdater {
require(pids.length == rewards.length, "-__-");
for (uint i = 0; i < pids.length; i++) {
uint256 pid = pids[i];
uint256 rewardPerBlock = rewards[i];
require(rewardPerBlock <= poolRewardLimiter, "Pool reward per block is too high");
updatePool(pid);
poolInfo[pid].rewardPerBlock = rewardPerBlock;
}
}
function updateVictimInfo(uint256 _pid, address _victim, uint256 _victimPoolId) public onlyOwner {
poolInfo[_pid].victim = Victim(_victim);
poolInfo[_pid].victimPoolId = _victimPoolId;
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

12

3999

640

1248

2111

167

Comments to Code 1248/2111 = 59%