This is a Yield Farming Process Quality Audit completed on 18 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 7%, a terrible score. 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)

Of the 4 contracts we know are part of Yield-Farming.io, only 1, the token contract is publicly declared (on the website footer). We only

The Address 0xf7Cb015141fEb3814aCd5F685fBFE879326BCaDC as indicated in the Appendix. This Audit only covers the contract YieldChef.

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 address is up to date. This is a very important question wrt to the final score.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Activity is _ 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)

0xf7Cb015141fEb3814aCd5F685fBFE879326BCaDC is the Etherscan verified contract address.

How to improve this score

Ensure that the deployed code is verified as described in this article for Etherscan or ETHPM. Improving this score may require redeployment.

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

No repository is available.

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: ??

How to improve this score

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.

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

No software repository is visible.

How to improve this score

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.

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)

There is a short medium article that explains how to use the application with the token address and social media addresses. However this does not explain the underlying logic and cannot be considered a white paper.

Location: _

How to improve this score

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.

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

There is no software documentation anywhere in the application.

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? (%)

There is no software documentation anywhere in the application.

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 (%)

Code comment in the MasterChef contract is actually quite good.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 136% 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 (%)

As there is no documentation, there can not be traceability.

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? (%)

As there is no code repository, there are no tests visible.

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) (%)

As there is no code repository, there are no tests visible and no 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)

As there is no code repository, there are no scripts and instructions for tests visible.

How to improve this score

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.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

As there is no code repository, there are no tests to package.

How to improve this score

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.

Report of the results (%)

As there is no code repository, there are no tests visible and therefore no test report.

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 (%)

No tests whatsoever or formal verification.

Stress Testing environment (%)

No evidence of stress tests or any test network.

Audits

There is an audit by HashEx noted in the website. The contracts were deployed on 4 September, 2020. The audit was started on 9 September and refers to the deployed contract addresses not any interim GitHub build. Several medium issues were raised by the audit, including a possible reentrancy attack. No software improvements are discussded or implemented.

In summary, this audit was started after deployment, is public and no corrections were attempted. For this case (not specifically covered below) a score of 40% is determined. However as the smart contract addresses are not public (except

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

    // The YIELD TOKEN!
    YieldToken public yield;
    // Dev address.
    address public devaddr;
    // Block number when bonus YIELD period ends.
    uint256 public bonusEndBlock;
    // YIELD tokens created per block.
    uint256 public yieldPerBlock;
    // Bonus muliplier for early yield makers.
    uint256 public constant BONUS_MULTIPLIER = 1; // no bonus
​
    // Info of each pool.
    PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
    // Info of each user that stakes LP tokens.
    mapping (uint256 => mapping (address => UserInfo)) public userInfo;
    // Total allocation poitns. Must be the sum of all allocation points in all pools.
    uint256 public totalAllocPoint = 0;
    // The block number when YIELD mining starts.
    uint256 public startBlock;
​
    event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
    event Withdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
    event EmergencyWithdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
​
    constructor(
        YieldToken _yield,
        address _devaddr,
        uint256 _yieldPerBlock,
        uint256 _startBlock,
        uint256 _bonusEndBlock
    ) public {
        yield = _yield;
        devaddr = _devaddr;
        yieldPerBlock = _yieldPerBlock;
        bonusEndBlock = _bonusEndBlock;
        startBlock = _startBlock;
    }
​
    function poolLength() external view returns (uint256) {
        return poolInfo.length;
    }
​
    // Add a new lp to the pool. Can only be called by the owner.
    // XXX DO NOT add the same LP token more than once. Rewards will be messed up if you do.
    function add(uint256 _allocPoint, IERC20 _lpToken, bool _withUpdate) public onlyOwner {
        if (_withUpdate) {
            massUpdatePools();
        }
        uint256 lastRewardBlock = block.number > startBlock ? block.number : startBlock;
        totalAllocPoint = totalAllocPoint.add(_allocPoint);
        poolInfo.push(PoolInfo({
            lpToken: _lpToken,
            allocPoint: _allocPoint,
            lastRewardBlock: lastRewardBlock,
            accYieldPerShare: 0
        }));
    }
​
    // Update the given pool's YIELD allocation point. Can only be called by the owner.
    function set(uint256 _pid, uint256 _allocPoint, bool _withUpdate) public onlyOwner {
        if (_withUpdate) {
            massUpdatePools();
        }
        totalAllocPoint = totalAllocPoint.sub(poolInfo[_pid].allocPoint).add(_allocPoint);
        poolInfo[_pid].allocPoint = _allocPoint;
    }
​
​
​
    // Return reward multiplier over the given _from to _to block.
    function getMultiplier(uint256 _from, uint256 _to) public view returns (uint256) {
        if (_to <= bonusEndBlock) {
            return _to.sub(_from).mul(BONUS_MULTIPLIER);
        } else if (_from >= bonusEndBlock) {
            return _to.sub(_from);
        } else {
            return bonusEndBlock.sub(_from).mul(BONUS_MULTIPLIER).add(
                _to.sub(bonusEndBlock)
            );
        }
    }
​
​

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 547/ 402 = 136%

​