Finished Reviews

RenVM Process Quality Review

Score : 88%

This is a RenVM Process Quality Audit completed on 7 September 2020. It was performed using the Process Audit process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The audit was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the audit is 88%, a strong pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the audit 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 audited and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This audit will answer the questions;

  1. Is 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? (%)

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

Answer: Yes

The addresses would not difficult to find. From the RenVM website I clicked "Developer Docs", then "Docs", then "Smart Contracts".

They are available at Address 0xe80d347DF1209a76DD9d2319d62912ba98C54DDD as indicated in the Appendix. This Audit only covers the contract GatewayRegistry.sol.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is in excess of 50 Internal 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: __

0xe80d347DF1209a76DD9d2319d62912ba98C54DDD is the Etherscan verified contract address.

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

Answer: 100%

When I first tried to find the files that matched I had such difficulty that I asked the developers. They created a release of the mainnet V1 files. This is exactly what I needed and is clearly available to the public so they get full marks for this.

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/renproject/darknode-sol

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/renproject/darknode-sol/releases/tag/mainnet-v1

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

Answer: 100%

With 1314 commits, 9 branches and many close repos showing continued development, this is a healthy GitHub.

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://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki

This wiki explains the top level on operation of the RenVM system.

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

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki

This meets the requirements of both sections. But the wiki discusses top level, not at code/contract level.

How to improve this score

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

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

Answer: 0%

The one thing lacking in their documentation is explanation of the code, directly related to the code.

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: 60%

As the code example shows the comments follow NatSpec and are clear and concise.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 32% 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%

As the documentation does not discuss the code, traceability is not possible.

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%

There are Typescript tests in the the darknode-sol/test and Solidity tests in darknode-sol/contracts/test

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

Answer: 99%

Code coverage is 99% as per https://github.com/renproject/darknode-sol covalls data.

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

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

Answer: Yes

Instructions are clear in the truffle.js and the readme

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 100%

The coveralls report gives the data required. https://coveralls.io/github/renproject/darknode-sol?branch=master

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 validation was seen,

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

The smart contract tab of the docs clearly shows an active kovan test net, as indicated in the Appendix.

Audits

Answer: 100%

In the GitHub are multiple independant audits by the best in the industry; https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Audits including ToB and Dilligence.

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 audit 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 Audits 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

pragma solidity 0.5.16;
import "../Governance/Claimable.sol";
import "./RenERC20.sol";
import "../libraries/LinkedList.sol";
import "./interfaces/IGateway.sol";
import "../libraries/CanReclaimTokens.sol";
/// @notice GatewayRegistry is a mapping from assets to their associated
/// RenERC20 and Gateway contracts.
contract GatewayRegistry is Claimable, CanReclaimTokens {
constructor() public {
Claimable.initialize(msg.sender);
CanReclaimTokens.initialize(msg.sender);
}
/// @dev The symbol is included twice because strings have to be hashed
/// first in order to be used as a log index/topic.
event LogGatewayRegistered(
string _symbol,
string indexed _indexedSymbol,
address indexed _token,
address indexed _gatewayContract
);
event LogGatewayDeregistered(
string _symbol,
string indexed _indexedSymbol,
address indexed _token,
address indexed _gatewayContract
);
event LogGatewayUpdated(
address indexed _token,
address indexed _currentGatewayContract,
address indexed _newGatewayContract
);
/// @notice The number of gateways registered.
uint256 numGatewayContracts = 0;
/// @notice A list of gateway contracts.
LinkedList.List private gatewayContractList;
/// @notice A list of ren token contracts.
LinkedList.List private renTokenList;
/// @notice A map of token addresses to canonical gateway contract addresses.
mapping(address => address) private gatewayByToken;
/// @notice A map of token symbols to token addresses.
mapping(string => address) private tokenBySymbol;
/// @notice Allow the owner to set the Gateway contract for a given
/// RenERC20 token contract.
///
/// @param _token The address of the RenERC20 token contract.
/// @param _gatewayContract The address of the Gateway contract.
function setGateway(string calldata _symbol, address _token, address _gatewayContract)
external
onlyOwner
{
require(symbolIsValid(_symbol), "GatewayRegistry: symbol must be alphanumeric");
// Check that token, Gateway and symbol haven't already been registered.
require(
!LinkedList.isInList(gatewayContractList, _gatewayContract),
"GatewayRegistry: gateway already registered"
);
require(
gatewayByToken[_token] == address(0x0),
"GatewayRegistry: token already registered"
);
require(
tokenBySymbol[_symbol] == address(0x0),
"GatewayRegistry: symbol already registered"
);
// Add to list of gateways.
LinkedList.append(gatewayContractList, _gatewayContract);
// Add to list of ren tokens.
LinkedList.append(renTokenList, _token);
tokenBySymbol[_symbol] = _token;
gatewayByToken[_token] = _gatewayContract;
numGatewayContracts += 1;
emit LogGatewayRegistered(_symbol, _symbol, _token, _gatewayContract);
}
/// @notice Allow the owner to update the Gateway contract for a given
/// RenERC20 contract.
///
/// @param _token The address of the RenERC20 contract.
/// @param _newGatewayContract The updated address of the Gateway contract.
function updateGateway(address _token, address _newGatewayContract)
external
onlyOwner
{
// Check that token, Gateway are registered
address currentGateway = gatewayByToken[_token];
require(
currentGateway != address(0x0),
"GatewayRegistry: token not registered"
);
// Remove to list of Gateway contracts.
LinkedList.remove(gatewayContractList, currentGateway);
// Add to list of RenERC20 tokens.
LinkedList.append(gatewayContractList, _newGatewayContract);
gatewayByToken[_token] = _newGatewayContract;
emit LogGatewayUpdated(_token, currentGateway, _newGatewayContract);
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

19

3054

374

646

2034

131

Comments to Code 646 / 2034 = 32%

Typescript and Solidity Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

TypeScript

14

4124

732

305

3087

117

Solidity

15

709

117

16

576

32

Tests to Code 3663 / 2034 = 180%

Test Networks