P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
OpenOcean Process Quality Review
Score: 53%

Overview

This is a OpenOcean Process Quality Review completed on September 21st 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nic of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 53%, a 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: Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Polygon
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra

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 following 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.openocean.finance/smart-contract-address-update-notice, 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 labeling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

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

Answer: 100%
Activity is over 10 transactions a day on contract OpenOceanExchange.sol, as indicated in the Appendix.

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 also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No".

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

Answer: 0%
With 11 commits and 1 branch, this is an unhealthy software repository development history.
This metric 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 30 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: No
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, 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
OpenOcean has none of their basic software functions documented.

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: 25%
OpenOcean has none of their basic software functions documented. However, they do have API documentation in their 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 be improved by adding content to the software functions 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 13% 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%
As there is no software documentation, we cannot evaluate the traceability to its source code.
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 documentation to code such that it is clear where each outlined function is coded in the source code. 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: 100%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 205% 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

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

Answer: 50%
There is no evidence of provided code coverage in the OpenOcean GitHub or in any of their audit reports, but there should be sufficient testing.
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 improved by adding tests that achieve 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

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of an OpenOcean test result report in their documentation or 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%
There is no evidence of a OpenOcean Formal Verification test in any of their documentation or in their audit reports.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of OpenOcean's testnet smart contract usage in any of their documentation.

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: 100%
Certik has published a OpenOcean audit report on March 9th 2021, which was weeks before their mainnet launch on March 29th 2021.
SlowMist has published multiple OpenOcean audit reports on March 9th 2021. These include BSC, Ethereum, and TRON contracts. All of these reports were published before OpenOcean's mainnet launch on March 29th 2021.
Notes On Audit Reports:
Certik's OpenSea report underlines several informational issues about the way that the OpenOcean code is written. Only one of the four issues (1/4) were resolved. However, they have resolved the most important one: OOE-04 underlined a security risk in the external call of the swap function where malicious code could be called. Since the OpenOcean team is the party that provides this external call function, both Certik and the protocol have deemed it safe/resolved.
SlowMist's OpenOcean reports underlines no real issue in the OpenOcean's exchange contract. Their use of OpenZeppelin's SafeMath mitigates any damage/bugs that could happen as a result of overflow, and is generally the recommended approach. SlowMist's only recommendation is to implement a function that would pause/shut down all contracts in case of anomalies.
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, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of a OpenOcean Bug Bounty in any of their documentation or on the Immunefi website.
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
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions 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? 21) 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%
Although there are multiple section of the OpenOcean documentation that mention governance, there are no real admin access controls documented/explained.
Note: Upon examining the OpenOcean code, they make use of high-level calls (returndata), which along with external calls can signify multiple instances where external contracts can be called. Along with the use of Interface and Library contracts, this is clear evidence that the Exchange contract is very upgradeable. In addition, the contract owner is a private address.
For the farming contract, the use of SafeERC20Upgradeable and the Initialize function are clear indicators that this contract is upgradeable as well.
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%
Although there are multiple section of the OpenOcean documentation that mention governance, there are no real admin access controls documented/explained.
Note: Upon examining the OpenOcean code, they make use of high-level calls (returndata), which along with external calls can signify multiple instances where external contracts can be called. Along with the use of Interface and Library contracts, this is clear evidence that the contracts are very upgradeable. In addition, the contract owner is a private address.
For the farming contract, the use of SafeERC20Upgradeable and the Initialize function are clear indicators that this contract is upgradeable as well.
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%
There is no information pertaining users' investments' safety in the OpenOcean 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: 20%
A Pausable.sol function was found in the OpenOcean Exchange v2 contract. However, the team does not mention it in any of their documentation, and no tests were ever recorded.
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
// reward amount is constant, =(endBlock - startBlock)*speed, and cannot update
2
contract MultiReward is OwnableUpgradeable {
3
using SafeERC20Upgradeable for IERC20Upgradeable;
4
5
uint public constant MULTIPLIER = 1e36;
6
7
/// @notice cannot use deflation token as stake token
8
IERC20Upgradeable public stakeToken;
9
10
uint public totalStaked;
11
mapping(address => uint) public userStaked;
12
13
struct Reward {
14
IERC20Upgradeable rewardToken;
15
uint speed;
16
uint startBlock;
17
uint endBlock;
18
uint index; // each reward own different index(accRewardPerShare)
19
uint updateBlock;
20
}
21
22
mapping(uint => Reward) public rewards;
23
uint public rewardsId;
24
25
struct UserState {
26
uint index; // user accrued reward per share
27
uint accrued; // claimed reward but not transfer to user
28
}
29
30
// user => rewardId => rewardAccrued
31
mapping(address => mapping(uint => UserState)) public userStates;
32
33
/* events */
34
event NewReward(uint rewardId, IERC20Upgradeable rewardToken, uint speed, uint startBlock, uint endBlock);
35
event DistributeReward(uint rewardId, address user, uint index, uint earned);
36
event Deposit(address user, uint amount, uint blockNumber);
37
event Withdraw(address user, uint amount, uint blockNumber);
38
39
function initialize(IERC20Upgradeable _stakeToken) public initializer {
40
__Ownable_init();
41
stakeToken = _stakeToken;
42
}
43
44
function withdrawByOwner(IERC20Upgradeable token, uint amt) public onlyOwner {
45
uint balance = token.balanceOf(address(this));
46
if (amt > balance) {
47
amt = balance;
48
}
49
token.safeTransfer(owner(), amt);
50
}
51
52
function setNewReward(IERC20Upgradeable _rewardToken, uint speed, uint startBlock, uint endBlock) public onlyOwner {
53
require(startBlock > block.number, 'illegal start block');
54
require(endBlock > startBlock, 'illegal end block');
55
rewardsId++;
56
rewards[rewardsId] = Reward(_rewardToken, speed, startBlock, endBlock, MULTIPLIER, startBlock);
57
_rewardToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), (endBlock - startBlock) * speed);
58
59
emit NewReward(rewardsId, _rewardToken, speed, startBlock, endBlock);
60
}
61
62
function deposit(uint amount) public {
63
// update index
64
for (uint i = 1; i <= rewardsId; i++) {
65
updateRewardIndex(i);
66
distributeReward(i, msg.sender);
67
}
68
uint balance = stakeToken.balanceOf(address(msg.sender));
69
if (amount > balance) {
70
amount = balance;
71
}
72
// update state
73
userStaked[msg.sender] += amount;
74
totalStaked += amount;
75
// transfer asset
76
stakeToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
77
emit Deposit(msg.sender, amount, block.number);
78
}
79
80
function withdraw(uint amount) public {
81
// update index
82
for (uint i = 1; i <= rewardsId; i++) {
83
updateRewardIndex(i);
84
distributeReward(i, msg.sender);
85
}
86
if (amount > userStaked[msg.sender]) {
87
amount = userStaked[msg.sender];
88
}
89
uint balance = stakeToken.balanceOf(address(this));
90
require(balance >= amount, "Insufficient balance");
91
// update state
92
userStaked[msg.sender] -= amount;
93
totalStaked -= amount;
94
// transfer asset
95
stakeToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, amount);
96
emit Withdraw(msg.sender, amount, block.number);
97
}
98
99
function claimBatch(address []memory users) public {
100
for (uint i = 0; i < users.length; i++) {
101
claim(users[i]);
102
}
103
}
104
105
function claim(address user) public {
106
for (uint i = 1; i <= rewardsId; i++) {
107
updateRewardIndex(i);
108
distributeReward(i, user);
109
}
110
}
111
112
function claimReward(address user, uint rewardId) public {
113
updateRewardIndex(rewardId);
114
distributeReward(rewardId, user);
115
}
116
117
function updateRewardIndex(uint rewardId) internal {
118
if (totalStaked == 0) {
119
// if there are no staked token, the reward accrued at contract
120
return;
121
}
122
Reward storage reward = rewards[rewardId];
123
if (reward.startBlock >= block.number) {
124
// reward not start
125
return;
126
}
127
uint latestBlock = block.number < reward.endBlock ? block.number : reward.endBlock;
128
uint blockDelta = latestBlock - reward.updateBlock;
129
if (blockDelta == 0) {
130
// reward ended
131
return;
132
}
133
uint rewardAccrued = blockDelta * reward.speed;
134
uint indexDelta = rewardAccrued * MULTIPLIER / totalStaked;
135
reward.index += indexDelta;
136
reward.updateBlock = latestBlock;
137
}
138
139
function distributeReward(uint rewardId, address user) internal {
140
UserState storage state = userStates[user][rewardId];
141
Reward storage reward = rewards[rewardId];
142
if (state.index == 0 && reward.index >= MULTIPLIER) {
143
state.index = MULTIPLIER;
144
}
145
uint indexDelta = reward.index - state.index;
146
uint earned = indexDelta * userStaked[user] / MULTIPLIER;
147
state.accrued += earned;
148
state.index = reward.index;
149
if (state.accrued > 0 && reward.rewardToken.balanceOf(address(this)) > state.accrued) {
150
reward.rewardToken.safeTransfer(user, state.accrued);
151
state.accrued = 0;
152
}
153
emit DistributeReward(rewardId, user, state.index, earned);
154
}
155
156
/* view function */
157
// return rewardId => rewardEarned
158
// result[rewardId-1] represent `rewardId` reward
159
function claimable(address user) public view returns (uint[] memory){
160
uint[]memory result = new uint[](rewardsId);
161
if (totalStaked == 0) {
162
// if there are no staked token, the reward accrued at contract
163
return result;
164
}
165
for (uint i = 1; i <= rewardsId; i++) {
166
Reward memory reward = rewards[i];
167
if (reward.startBlock >= block.number) {
168
// reward not start
169
continue;
170
}
171
uint latestBlock = block.number < reward.endBlock ? block.number : reward.endBlock;
172
uint blockDelta = latestBlock - reward.updateBlock;
173
if (blockDelta == 0) {
174
// reward ended
175
continue;
176
}
177
uint rewardAccrued = blockDelta * reward.speed;
178
UserState memory state = userStates[user][i];
179
if (state.index == 0 && reward.index >= MULTIPLIER) {
180
state.index = MULTIPLIER;
181
}
182
uint indexDelta = reward.index - state.index + rewardAccrued * MULTIPLIER / totalStaked;
183
uint earned = indexDelta * userStaked[user] / MULTIPLIER;
184
result[i - 1] = state.accrued + earned;
185
}
186
return result;
187
}
188
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
1
194
22
20
152
27
Comments to Code 20/152 = 13%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
5
337
20
6
311
17
Tests to Code 311/152 = 205%
Last modified 22d ago