P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Visor Finance Process Quality Review
Score: 43%

Overview

This is a Visor Finance Process Quality Review completed on September 2nd 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 43%, 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
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.visor.finance/visor-protocol/technical-architecture/visor, 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 VisorFactory.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 9 commits and 3 branches, this is an underdeveloped software repository.
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
There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance documentation.

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: 0%
There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance 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 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: 21%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 21% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Note: Interface, mocks, and any third-party files were not used in the calculation of the CtC.
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%
There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance documentation. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the traceability towards their implementation in the Visor 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 144% 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 a reasonable set of tests, but no indication of code coverage in any of the Visor Finance documentation or in their Certik audit 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: https://github.com/VisorFinance/hypervisor.

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There are no test result reports available in any of the Visor Finance documentation or GitHub repositories.
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 Visor Finance Formal Verification test in any of their documentation or in further web searches.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of any Visor Finance 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: 70%
Certik published a Visor Finance audit report on July 7th 2021, which is after their Hypervisor mainnet launch in late May. Two items of concern from the audit. First re-entracy risks exist and were not resolved. Second the Owner has very high power.
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 Visor Finance Bug Bounty program in any of their documentation or in further web searches.
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%
There are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance documentation. Based on our reading, this is an upgradeable contract with OnlyOwner and no timelock or multisig.
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%
There are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance documentation.
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 are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance 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: 0%
There is no evidence of a Pause Control or similar functions in any of the Visor Finance 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

1
contract Hypervisor is IHypervisor, Powered, Ownable {
2
using SafeMath for uint256;
3
using EnumerableSet for EnumerableSet.AddressSet;
4
5
/* constants */
6
7
// An upper bound on the number of active stakes per vault is required to prevent
8
// calls to rageQuit() from reverting.
9
// With 30 stakes in a vault, ragequit costs 432811 gas which is conservatively lower
10
// than the hardcoded limit of 500k gas on the vault.
11
// This limit is configurable and could be increased in a future deployment.
12
// Ultimately, to avoid a need for fixed upper bounds, the EVM would need to provide
13
// an error code that allows for reliably catching out-of-gas errors on remote calls.
14
uint256 public constant MAX_STAKES_PER_VAULT = 30;
15
uint256 public constant MAX_REWARD_TOKENS = 50;
16
uint256 public constant BASE_SHARES_PER_WEI = 1000000;
17
uint256 public stakeLimit = 2500 ether;
18
19
/* storage */
20
21
HypervisorData private _hypervisor;
22
mapping(address => VaultData) private _vaults;
23
EnumerableSet.AddressSet private _bonusTokenSet;
24
EnumerableSet.AddressSet private _vaultFactorySet;
25
26
/* initializer */
27
28
/// @notice Initizalize Hypervisor
29
/// access control: only proxy constructor
30
/// state machine: can only be called once
31
/// state scope: set initialization variables
32
/// token transfer: none
33
/// @param ownerAddress address The admin address
34
/// @param rewardPoolFactory address The factory to use for deploying the RewardPool
35
/// @param powerSwitchFactory address The factory to use for deploying the PowerSwitch
36
/// @param stakingToken address The address of the staking token for this Hypervisor
37
/// @param rewardToken address The address of the reward token for this Hypervisor
38
/// @param rewardScaling RewardScaling The config for reward scaling floor, ceiling, and time
39
constructor(
40
address ownerAddress,
41
address rewardPoolFactory,
42
address powerSwitchFactory,
43
address stakingToken,
44
address rewardToken,
45
RewardScaling memory rewardScaling,
46
uint256 _stakeLimit
47
) {
48
// the scaling floor must be smaller than ceiling
49
require(rewardScaling.floor <= rewardScaling.ceiling, "Hypervisor: floor above ceiling");
50
51
// setting rewardScalingTime to 0 would cause divide by zero error
52
// to disable reward scaling, use rewardScalingFloor == rewardScalingCeiling
53
require(rewardScaling.time != 0, "Hypervisor: scaling time cannot be zero");
54
55
// deploy power switch
56
address powerSwitch = IFactory(powerSwitchFactory).create(abi.encode(ownerAddress));
57
58
// deploy reward pool
59
address rewardPool = IFactory(rewardPoolFactory).create(abi.encode(powerSwitch));
60
61
// set internal configs
62
Ownable.transferOwnership(ownerAddress);
63
Powered._setPowerSwitch(powerSwitch);
64
65
// commit to storage
66
_hypervisor.stakingToken = stakingToken;
67
_hypervisor.rewardToken = rewardToken;
68
_hypervisor.rewardPool = rewardPool;
69
_hypervisor.rewardScaling = rewardScaling;
70
71
stakeLimit = _stakeLimit;
72
73
// emit event
74
emit HypervisorCreated(rewardPool, powerSwitch);
75
}
76
77
/* getter functions */
78
79
function getBonusTokenSetLength() external view override returns (uint256 length) {
80
return _bonusTokenSet.length();
81
}
82
83
function getBonusTokenAtIndex(uint256 index)
84
external
85
view
86
override
87
returns (address bonusToken)
88
{
89
return _bonusTokenSet.at(index);
90
}
91
92
function getVaultFactorySetLength() external view override returns (uint256 length) {
93
return _vaultFactorySet.length();
94
}
95
96
function getVaultFactoryAtIndex(uint256 index)
97
external
98
view
99
override
100
returns (address factory)
101
{
102
return _vaultFactorySet.at(index);
103
}
104
105
function isValidVault(address target) public view override returns (bool validity) {
106
// validate target is created from whitelisted vault factory
107
for (uint256 index = 0; index < _vaultFactorySet.length(); index++) {
108
if (IInstanceRegistry(_vaultFactorySet.at(index)).isInstance(target)) {
109
return true;
110
}
111
}
112
// explicit return
113
return false;
114
}
115
116
function isValidAddress(address target) public view override returns (bool validity) {
117
// sanity check target for potential input errors
118
return
119
target != address(this) &&
120
target != address(0) &&
121
target != _hypervisor.stakingToken &&
122
target != _hypervisor.rewardToken &&
123
target != _hypervisor.rewardPool &&
124
!_bonusTokenSet.contains(target);
125
}
126
127
/* Hypervisor getters */
128
129
function getHypervisorData() external view override returns (HypervisorData memory hypervisor) {
130
return _hypervisor;
131
}
132
133
function getCurrentUnlockedRewards() public view override returns (uint256 unlockedRewards) {
134
// calculate reward available based on state
135
return getFutureUnlockedRewards(block.timestamp);
136
}
137
138
function getFutureUnlockedRewards(uint256 timestamp)
139
public
140
view
141
override
142
returns (uint256 unlockedRewards)
143
{
144
// get reward amount remaining
145
uint256 remainingRewards = IERC20(_hypervisor.rewardToken).balanceOf(_hypervisor.rewardPool);
146
// calculate reward available based on state
147
unlockedRewards = calculateUnlockedRewards(
148
_hypervisor.rewardSchedules,
149
remainingRewards,
150
_hypervisor.rewardSharesOutstanding,
151
timestamp
152
);
153
// explicit return
154
return unlockedRewards;
155
}
156
157
function getCurrentTotalStakeUnits() public view override returns (uint256 totalStakeUnits) {
158
// calculate new stake units
159
return getFutureTotalStakeUnits(block.timestamp);
160
}
161
162
function getFutureTotalStakeUnits(uint256 timestamp)
163
public
164
view
165
override
166
returns (uint256 totalStakeUnits)
167
{
168
// return early if no change
169
if (timestamp == _hypervisor.lastUpdate) return _hypervisor.totalStakeUnits;
170
// calculate new stake units
171
uint256 newStakeUnits =
172
calculateStakeUnits(_hypervisor.totalStake, _hypervisor.lastUpdate, timestamp);
173
// add to cached total
174
totalStakeUnits = _hypervisor.totalStakeUnits.add(newStakeUnits);
175
// explicit return
176
return totalStakeUnits;
177
}
178
179
/* vault getters */
180
181
function getVaultData(address vault)
182
external
183
view
184
override
185
returns (VaultData memory vaultData)
186
{
187
return _vaults[vault];
188
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
2
515
63
77
375
65
Comments to Code 77/375 = 21%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
2
724
124
60
540
8
Tests to Code 540/375 = 144%
Last modified 1mo ago