This is a YFFI Finance Process Quality Audit completed on 9 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 2%, a complete disaster. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.
The YFFI score is so low for two reasons; first they do not declare their smart contract mainnet addresses and second they do not publicly state their software repo. Without this information the low score is inevitable given our 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.
Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts
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.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
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;
Is the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)
Is the code actively being used? (%)
Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)
Does the code match a tagged version in the code hosting platform? (%)
Is the software repository healthy? (%)
Answer: No
YFFI does not say the addresses of their contracts or the location of their GitHub either. From the "Proof of Burn" page we see three contracts. I am not sure if this are all of their contracts or not.
We look at the token contract (0xCee1d3c3A02267e37E6B373060F79d5d7b9e1669) derived from the proof of burn page
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 address is up to date. This is a very important question wrt to the final score.
Answer: 100%
Activity is more than 100 transactions a day, as indicated in the Appendix.
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
Answer: No
0xCee1d3c3A02267e37E6B373060F79d5d7b9e1669 is the Etherscan verified contract address, but I won't give a score when there is no software repository to compare against.
Ensure that the deployed code is verified as described in this article for Etherscan or ETHPM. Improving this score may require redeployment.
Answer: 0%
No GitHub address visible.
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 : _
Deployed contracts in the following file;
Matching Repository: _
Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Ensure an appropriately labeled tag exists corresponding to deployment dates. Release tags are clearly communicated.
Answer: 0%
No GitHub address visible.
Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)
Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
Is it possible to trace software requirements to the implementation in code (%)
Answer: No
Location: not visible
Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.
Answer: No
Location: not visible
Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.
Answer: 0%
No documentation whatsoever
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.
Answer: 0%
Code examples are in the not available. As per the SLOC, there is no known commenting to code.
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.
Answer: 0%
No documentation whatsoever
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
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.
This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)
Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)
Report of the results (%)
Formal Verification test done (%)
Stress Testing environment (%)
Answer: 0%
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
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.
Answer: 0%
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
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
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.
Answer: No
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
Add the scripts to the repository and ensure they work. Ask an outsider to create the environment and run the tests. Improve the scripts and docs based on their feedback.
Answer: No
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.
Answer: 0%
With no repo, there are no tests or reports visible.
Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.
Answer: 0%
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
Answer: 0%
With no repo, there are no tests visible.
Answer: 0%
No audits visible. But because their smart contract locations are not public, this score is 0%
Guidance:
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)
No audit performed (20%)
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, question 1 (0%)
The author of this audit is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.
Email : [email protected]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.