Finished Reviews

Defi Swap Process Quality Review

Score: 28%

This is a Process Quality Review of Defi Swap completed on 22 January 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.1) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 28%, a far from a 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.

  • 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

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.

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? (Y/N)

  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)

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

Answer: No

There are no published smart contract addresses evident in their documentation or github.

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 wrt to the final score.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 0%

As there are no published smart contract addresses, there is no code activity.

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

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

Answer: Yes

GitHub: https://github.com/crypto-com/swap-contracts-core

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.

Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%

With 307 commits and 13 branches, this is a healthy 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

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

Answer: Yes

https://hk.linkedin.com/company/cryptocom

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;

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

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

  3. Does the software function documentation 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 from software documentation to the implementation in codee (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: No

There is no smart contract documentation on their website or in their documentation.

How to improve this score

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

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

Answer: 0%

There is no smart contract documentation on their website or in their documentation.

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.

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

Answer: 4%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 4% 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.

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

Answer: 0%

There is no smart contract documentation on their website or in their 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 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: 100%

With a TtC of 161%, this is a full test suite.

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.

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

Answer: 50%

There is clearly a reasonable set of tests, but there is no evidence of 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: Yes

There is a minimal, but present, set of instructions to run the tests.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The tests are packaged with the deployed code.

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of any published test report.

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.

Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of formal verification testing having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

Kovan stress-testing is mentioned in their github, but no addresses are published and therefore no verification for stress testing.

Audits

Answer: 0%

With no published smart contract addresses, it is impossible to verify the legitimacy of any published audit.

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 DeFi Safety.

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

Example Code Appendix

pragma solidity =0.5.16;
import './interfaces/ICroDefiSwapERC20.sol';
import './libraries/SafeMath.sol';
contract CroDefiSwapERC20 is ICroDefiSwapERC20 {
using SafeMath for uint;
string public constant name = 'CRO Defi Swap';
string public constant symbol = 'CRO-SWAP';
uint8 public constant decimals = 18;
uint public totalSupply;
mapping(address => uint) public balanceOf;
mapping(address => mapping(address => uint)) public allowance;
bytes32 public DOMAIN_SEPARATOR;
// keccak256("Permit(address owner,address spender,uint256 value,uint256 nonce,uint256 deadline)");
bytes32 public constant PERMIT_TYPEHASH = 0x6e71edae12b1b97f4d1f60370fef10105fa2faae0126114a169c64845d6126c9;
mapping(address => uint) public nonces;
event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint value);
event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint value);
constructor() public {
uint chainId;
assembly {
chainId := chainid
}
DOMAIN_SEPARATOR = keccak256(
abi.encode(
keccak256('EIP712Domain(string name,string version,uint256 chainId,address verifyingContract)'),
keccak256(bytes(name)),
keccak256(bytes('1')),
chainId,
address(this)
)
);
}
function _mint(address to, uint value) internal {
totalSupply = totalSupply.add(value);
balanceOf[to] = balanceOf[to].add(value);
emit Transfer(address(0), to, value);
}
function _burn(address from, uint value) internal {
balanceOf[from] = balanceOf[from].sub(value);
totalSupply = totalSupply.sub(value);
emit Transfer(from, address(0), value);
}
function _approve(address owner, address spender, uint value) private {
allowance[owner][spender] = value;
emit Approval(owner, spender, value);
}
function _transfer(address from, address to, uint value) private {
balanceOf[from] = balanceOf[from].sub(value);
balanceOf[to] = balanceOf[to].add(value);
emit Transfer(from, to, value);
}
function approve(address spender, uint value) external returns (bool) {
_approve(msg.sender, spender, value);
return true;
}
function transfer(address to, uint value) external returns (bool) {
_transfer(msg.sender, to, value);
return true;
}
function transferFrom(address from, address to, uint value) external returns (bool) {
if (allowance[from][msg.sender] != uint(-1)) {
allowance[from][msg.sender] = allowance[from][msg.sender].sub(value);
}
_transfer(from, to, value);
return true;
}
function permit(address owner, address spender, uint value, uint deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external {
require(deadline >= block.timestamp, 'CroDefiSwap: EXPIRED');
bytes32 digest = keccak256(
abi.encodePacked(
'\x19\x01',
DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,
keccak256(abi.encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, owner, spender, value, nonces[owner]++, deadline))
)
);
address recoveredAddress = ecrecover(digest, v, r, s);
require(recoveredAddress != address(0) && recoveredAddress == owner, 'CroDefiSwap: INVALID_SIGNATURE');
_approve(owner, spender, value);
}
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

12

582

93

21

468

61

Comments to Code 21/468 = 4%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

5

939

139

32

768

24

Tests to Code 758 / 468 = 161%