Finished Reviews

Orion Protocol Process Quality Review

Score: 50%

Overview

This is a Orion Protocol Process Quality Review completed on July 14th 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 50%, 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

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 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: 40%

They are available at website https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/blob/master/Deployment.md, as indicated in the Appendix.

Note: Orion gets a 40% for putting their executing addresses in a GitHub folder called "Deployment.md", a location that requires some knowledge to search for.

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

How to improve this score:

Make the Ethereum addresses of the smart contract utilized by your application available on either your website or your GitHub (in the README for instance). Ensure the addresses is up to date. This is a very important question towards the final score.

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

Answer: 100%

Activity is 90 transactions a day on contract Exchange.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

GitHub: /orion-exchangehttps://github.com/orionprotocol/.​

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: 100%

With 226 commits and 5 branches in their main contracts repository, this is a healthy 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

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

Answer: Yes

Orion Protocol's team member information can be found at https://www.orionprotocol.io/about.

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

Location: https://www.orionprotocol.io/hubfs/whitepaper.pdf.

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

Answer: Yes

There are basic Orion Protocol software functions documented here (p.34-35) and here.

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

Answer: 80%

Orion Protocol has documented the software functions (code) of the most major of their contracts, which are those of their exchange. In addition, there is robust Orion API documentation here.

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: 26%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 26% 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: 60%

Orion Protocol's documentation lists all the major functions while non-explicitly tracing them back to their source code in their API documentation.​

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: 80%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 95% 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 improved 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: 60%

Orion Protocol has a passing CI and a robust set of tests (95% TtC), but the CL does not link to a coverage report.

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

Scrips/Instructions location: There are scripts located here and instructions to run tests at the bottom of here, and here.

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test report was found in the Orion Protocol GitHub repository or any of their documentation.

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 Orion Protocol Formal Verification test was found in their documentation or in web searches.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

There is evidence of Orion Protocol's test-net smart contract usage at https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/blob/master/Deployment.md.

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: 20%

​Certik published a Orion Token Sale audit report on July 11th 2020. This does not concern the smart contracts of the protocol that does not seem to have an audit yet. Therefore a 20% score.

Orion Protocol launched their mainnet (Orion Terminal) on May 31st 2021.

Note: Most of the Certik fix recommendations were purely informational, and did not necessarily require implementation from the Orion Protocol team.

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

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: 30%

Orion protocol previously had a Bug Hunter Program that rewarded beta testers with up to 100,000 USDT for the most critical of bug finds.

Note: No longer an active program.

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: 40%

Access controls were found in the "Orion Protocol and Foundation" section of the Orion Protocol whitepaper (p.31), as well as https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/tree/master/docs.

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: 60%

a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable at https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/tree/master/docs.

b) User is the onlyOwner of their wallet info.

c) No capabilities for change in contracts are described.

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: 30%

All access control descriptions in the Orion Protocol documentation are all written in a very technical fashion that could be difficult for users to understand.

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 evidence of Pause Control or similar functions found in the Orion Protocol 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

/**
* @title Exchange
* @dev Exchange contract for the Orion Protocol
* @author @wafflemakr
*/
​
/*
Overflow safety:
We do not use SafeMath and control overflows by
not accepting large ints on input.
Balances inside contract are stored as int192.
Allowed input amounts are int112 or uint112: it is enough for all
practically used tokens: for instance if decimal unit is 1e18, int112
allow to encode up to 2.5e15 decimal units.
That way adding/subtracting any amount from balances won't overflow, since
minimum number of operations to reach max int is practically infinite: ~1e24.
Allowed prices are uint64. Note, that price is represented as
price per 1e8 tokens. That means that amount*price always fit uint256,
while amount*price/1e8 not only fit int192, but also can be added, subtracted
without overflow checks: number of malicion operations to overflow ~1e13.
*/
contract Exchange is OrionVault, ReentrancyGuard {
​
using LibValidator for LibValidator.Order;
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
​
// Flags for updateOrders
// All flags are explicit
uint8 constant kSell = 0;
uint8 constant kBuy = 1; // if 0 - then sell
uint8 constant kCorrectMatcherFeeByOrderAmount = 2;
​
// EVENTS
event NewAssetTransaction(
address indexed user,
address indexed assetAddress,
bool isDeposit,
uint112 amount,
uint64 timestamp
);
​
event NewTrade(
address indexed buyer,
address indexed seller,
address baseAsset,
address quoteAsset,
uint64 filledPrice,
uint192 filledAmount,
uint192 amountQuote
);
​
// MAIN FUNCTIONS
​
/**
* @dev Since Exchange will work behind the Proxy contract it can not have constructor
*/
function initialize() public payable initializer {
OwnableUpgradeSafe.__Ownable_init();
}
​
/**
* @dev set basic Exchange params
* @param orionToken - base token address
* @param priceOracleAddress - adress of PriceOracle contract
* @param allowedMatcher - address which has authorization to match orders
*/
function setBasicParams(address orionToken, address priceOracleAddress, address allowedMatcher) public onlyOwner {
require((orionToken != address(0)) && (priceOracleAddress != address(0)), "E15");
_orionToken = IERC20(orionToken);
_oracleAddress = priceOracleAddress;
_allowedMatcher = allowedMatcher;
}
​
​
/**
* @dev set marginal settings
* @param _collateralAssets - list of addresses of assets which may be used as collateral
* @param _stakeRisk - risk coefficient for staken orion as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
* @param _liquidationPremium - premium for liquidator as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
* @param _priceOverdue - time after that price became outdated
* @param _positionOverdue - time after that liabilities became overdue and may be liquidated
*/
​
function updateMarginalSettings(address[] calldata _collateralAssets,
uint8 _stakeRisk,
uint8 _liquidationPremium,
uint64 _priceOverdue,
uint64 _positionOverdue) public onlyOwner {
collateralAssets = _collateralAssets;
stakeRisk = _stakeRisk;
liquidationPremium = _liquidationPremium;
priceOverdue = _priceOverdue;
positionOverdue = _positionOverdue;
}
​
/**
* @dev set risk coefficients for collateral assets
* @param assets - list of assets
* @param risks - list of risks as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
*/
function updateAssetRisks(address[] calldata assets, uint8[] calldata risks) public onlyOwner {
for(uint256 i; i< assets.length; i++)
assetRisks[assets[i]] = risks[i];
}
​
/**
* @dev Deposit ERC20 tokens to the exchange contract
* @dev User needs to approve token contract first
* @param amount asset amount to deposit in its base unit
*/
function depositAsset(address assetAddress, uint112 amount) external {
//require(asset.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), uint256(amount)), "E6");
IERC20(assetAddress).safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), uint256(amount));
generalDeposit(assetAddress,amount);
}
​
/**
* @notice Deposit ETH to the exchange contract
* @dev deposit event will be emitted with the amount in decimal format (10^8)
* @dev balance will be stored in decimal format too
*/
function deposit() external payable {
generalDeposit(address(0), uint112(msg.value));
}
​
/**
* @dev internal implementation of deposits
*/
function generalDeposit(address assetAddress, uint112 amount) internal {
address user = msg.sender;
bool wasLiability = assetBalances[user][assetAddress]<0;
int112 safeAmountDecimal = LibUnitConverter.baseUnitToDecimal(
assetAddress,
amount
);
assetBalances[user][assetAddress] += safeAmountDecimal;
if(amount>0)
emit NewAssetTransaction(user, assetAddress, true, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), uint64(block.timestamp));
if(wasLiability)
MarginalFunctionality.updateLiability(user, assetAddress, liabilities, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), assetBalances[user][assetAddress]);
​
}
/**
* @dev Withdrawal of remaining funds from the contract back to the address
* @param assetAddress address of the asset to withdraw
* @param amount asset amount to withdraw in its base unit
*/
function withdraw(address assetAddress, uint112 amount)
external
nonReentrant
{
int112 safeAmountDecimal = LibUnitConverter.baseUnitToDecimal(
assetAddress,
amount
);
​
address user = msg.sender;
​
assetBalances[user][assetAddress] -= safeAmountDecimal;
​
require(assetBalances[user][assetAddress]>=0, "E1w1"); //TODO
require(checkPosition(user), "E1w2"); //TODO
​
uint256 _amount = uint256(amount);
if(assetAddress == address(0)) {
(bool success, ) = user.call{value:_amount}("");
require(success, "E6w");
} else {
IERC20(assetAddress).safeTransfer(user, _amount);
}
​
​
emit NewAssetTransaction(user, assetAddress, false, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), uint64(block.timestamp));
}
​

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

55

5058

580

917

3561

366

Comments to Code 917/3561 = 26%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

18

4550

676

499

3375

64

Tests to Code 3375/3561 = 95%