P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Goose Finance Process Quality Review
Score: 34%

Overview

This is a Process Quality Review completed on of goose.finance on May 18th, 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7) and is documented here. The review was performed by Lucas of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 34%, 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: Binance
Guidance: Ethereum Binance

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? (%) 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://github.com/goosedefi/goose-contracts 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 labelling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

2) Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%
Activity is 1303 transactions a day on contract masterchef.sol, 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

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

Answer: Yes
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.

4) Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 10%
With 12 commits and 1 branch, this is not a healthy software 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

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
The Goose Finance team is not public.
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;
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 is no evidence of any software function 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 is no software function 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.

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

Answer: 23%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 23% 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.

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

Answer: 0%
There is no software function 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;
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: 0%
There are no test files evident.
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.

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

Answer: 0%
There is no evident documented 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.

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

Answer: No
there are no scripts and instructions to run the tests.

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.

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evident report of the results.
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 any formal verification testing.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
There are no evident testnet addresses.

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%
Hacken preformed an audit Febuary 21st, 2021.
Certik did an audit on the 17th of Febuary, 2021.
Both audits were preformed after the release of Goose Finance.
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 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, question

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 40%
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 50% Bounty is 100k or over 40% Bounty is 50k or over 20% Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k 0% No bug bounty program offered
Active program means a third party actively driving hackers to the site. Inactive program would be static mention 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? 2`) 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 admin controls (%)

Answer: 0%
There are no apparent indication of admin access controls.
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 is no access control evidence availible.
Guidance: All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND 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 is no apparent information about access controls in non-technical terms.
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%
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
pragma solidity 0.6.12;
2
3
import "./libs/BEP20.sol";
4
5
// EggToken with Governance.
6
contract EggToken is BEP20('Goose Golden Egg', 'EGG') {
7
/// @notice Creates `_amount` token to `_to`. Must only be called by the owner (MasterChef).
8
function mint(address _to, uint256 _amount) public onlyOwner {
9
_mint(_to, _amount);
10
_moveDelegates(address(0), _delegates[_to], _amount);
11
}
12
13
// Copied and modified from YAM code:
14
// https://github.com/yam-finance/yam-protocol/blob/master/contracts/token/YAMGovernanceStorage.sol
15
// https://github.com/yam-finance/yam-protocol/blob/master/contracts/token/YAMGovernance.sol
16
// Which is copied and modified from COMPOUND:
17
// https://github.com/compound-finance/compound-protocol/blob/master/contracts/Governance/Comp.sol
18
19
/// @notice A record of each accounts delegate
20
mapping (address => address) internal _delegates;
21
22
/// @notice A checkpoint for marking number of votes from a given block
23
struct Checkpoint {
24
uint32 fromBlock;
25
uint256 votes;
26
}
27
28
/// @notice A record of votes checkpoints for each account, by index
29
mapping (address => mapping (uint32 => Checkpoint)) public checkpoints;
30
31
/// @notice The number of checkpoints for each account
32
mapping (address => uint32) public numCheckpoints;
33
34
/// @notice The EIP-712 typehash for the contract's domain
35
bytes32 public constant DOMAIN_TYPEHASH = keccak256("EIP712Domain(string name,uint256 chainId,address verifyingContract)");
36
37
/// @notice The EIP-712 typehash for the delegation struct used by the contract
38
bytes32 public constant DELEGATION_TYPEHASH = keccak256("Delegation(address delegatee,uint256 nonce,uint256 expiry)");
39
40
/// @notice A record of states for signing / validating signatures
41
mapping (address => uint) public nonces;
42
43
/// @notice An event thats emitted when an account changes its delegate
44
event DelegateChanged(address indexed delegator, address indexed fromDelegate, address indexed toDelegate);
45
46
/// @notice An event thats emitted when a delegate account's vote balance changes
47
event DelegateVotesChanged(address indexed delegate, uint previousBalance, uint newBalance);
48
49
/**
50
* @notice Delegate votes from `msg.sender` to `delegatee`
51
* @param delegator The address to get delegatee for
52
*/
53
function delegates(address delegator)
54
external
55
view
56
returns (address)
57
{
58
return _delegates[delegator];
59
}
60
61
/**
62
* @notice Delegate votes from `msg.sender` to `delegatee`
63
* @param delegatee The address to delegate votes to
64
*/
65
function delegate(address delegatee) external {
66
return _delegate(msg.sender, delegatee);
67
}
68
69
/**
70
* @notice Delegates votes from signatory to `delegatee`
71
* @param delegatee The address to delegate votes to
72
* @param nonce The contract state required to match the signature
73
* @param expiry The time at which to expire the signature
74
* @param v The recovery byte of the signature
75
* @param r Half of the ECDSA signature pair
76
* @param s Half of the ECDSA signature pair
77
*/
78
function delegateBySig(
79
address delegatee,
80
uint nonce,
81
uint expiry,
82
uint8 v,
83
bytes32 r,
84
bytes32 s
85
)
86
external
87
{
88
bytes32 domainSeparator = keccak256(
89
abi.encode(
90
DOMAIN_TYPEHASH,
91
keccak256(bytes(name())),
92
getChainId(),
93
address(this)
94
)
95
);
96
97
bytes32 structHash = keccak256(
98
abi.encode(
99
DELEGATION_TYPEHASH,
100
delegatee,
101
nonce,
102
expiry
103
)
104
);
105
106
bytes32 digest = keccak256(
107
abi.encodePacked(
108
"\x19\x01",
109
domainSeparator,
110
structHash
111
)
112
);
113
114
address signatory = ecrecover(digest, v, r, s);
115
require(signatory != address(0), "EGG::delegateBySig: invalid signature");
116
require(nonce == nonces[signatory]++, "EGG::delegateBySig: invalid nonce");
117
require(now <= expiry, "EGG::delegateBySig: signature expired");
118
return _delegate(signatory, delegatee);
119
}
120
121
/**
122
* @notice Gets the current votes balance for `account`
123
* @param account The address to get votes balance
124
* @return The number of current votes for `account`
125
*/
126
function getCurrentVotes(address account)
127
external
128
view
129
returns (uint256)
130
{
131
uint32 nCheckpoints = numCheckpoints[account];
132
return nCheckpoints > 0 ? checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].votes : 0;
133
}
134
135
/**
136
* @notice Determine the prior number of votes for an account as of a block number
137
* @dev Block number must be a finalized block or else this function will revert to prevent misinformation.
138
* @param account The address of the account to check
139
* @param blockNumber The block number to get the vote balance at
140
* @return The number of votes the account had as of the given block
141
*/
142
function getPriorVotes(address account, uint blockNumber)
143
external
144
view
145
returns (uint256)
146
{
147
require(blockNumber < block.number, "EGG::getPriorVotes: not yet determined");
148
149
uint32 nCheckpoints = numCheckpoints[account];
150
if (nCheckpoints == 0) {
151
return 0;
152
}
153
154
// First check most recent balance
155
if (checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].fromBlock <= blockNumber) {
156
return checkpoints[account][nCheckpoints - 1].votes;
157
}
158
159
// Next check implicit zero balance
160
if (checkpoints[account][0].fromBlock > blockNumber) {
161
return 0;
162
}
163
164
uint32 lower = 0;
165
uint32 upper = nCheckpoints - 1;
166
while (upper > lower) {
167
uint32 center = upper - (upper - lower) / 2; // ceil, avoiding overflow
168
Checkpoint memory cp = checkpoints[account][center];
169
if (cp.fromBlock == blockNumber) {
170
return cp.votes;
171
} else if (cp.fromBlock < blockNumber) {
172
lower = center;
173
} else {
174
upper = center - 1;
175
}
176
}
177
return checkpoints[account][lower].votes;
178
}
179
180
function _delegate(address delegator, address delegatee)
181
internal
182
{
183
address currentDelegate = _delegates[delegator];
184
uint256 delegatorBalance = balanceOf(delegator); // balance of underlying EGGs (not scaled);
185
_delegates[delegator] = delegatee;
186
187
emit DelegateChanged(delegator, currentDelegate, delegatee);
188
189
_moveDelegates(currentDelegate, delegatee, delegatorBalance);
190
}
191
192
function _moveDelegates(address srcRep, address dstRep, uint256 amount) internal {
193
if (srcRep != dstRep && amount > 0) {
194
if (srcRep != address(0)) {
195
// decrease old representative
196
uint32 srcRepNum = numCheckpoints[srcRep];
197
uint256 srcRepOld = srcRepNum > 0 ? checkpoints[srcRep][srcRepNum - 1].votes : 0;
198
uint256 srcRepNew = srcRepOld.sub(amount);
199
_writeCheckpoint(srcRep, srcRepNum, srcRepOld, srcRepNew);
200
}
201
202
if (dstRep != address(0)) {
203
// increase new representative
204
uint32 dstRepNum = numCheckpoints[dstRep];
205
uint256 dstRepOld = dstRepNum > 0 ? checkpoints[dstRep][dstRepNum - 1].votes : 0;
206
uint256 dstRepNew = dstRepOld.add(amount);
207
_writeCheckpoint(dstRep, dstRepNum, dstRepOld, dstRepNew);
208
}
209
}
210
}
211
212
function _writeCheckpoint(
213
address delegatee,
214
uint32 nCheckpoints,
215
uint256 oldVotes,
216
uint256 newVotes
217
)
218
internal
219
{
220
uint32 blockNumber = safe32(block.number, "EGG::_writeCheckpoint: block number exceeds 32 bits");
221
222
if (nCheckpoints > 0 && checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints - 1].fromBlock == blockNumber) {
223
checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints - 1].votes = newVotes;
224
} else {
225
checkpoints[delegatee][nCheckpoints] = Checkpoint(blockNumber, newVotes);
226
numCheckpoints[delegatee] = nCheckpoints + 1;
227
}
228
229
emit DelegateVotesChanged(delegatee, oldVotes, newVotes);
230
}
231
232
function safe32(uint n, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint32) {
233
require(n < 2**32, errorMessage);
234
return uint32(n);
235
}
236
237
function getChainId() internal pure returns (uint) {
238
uint256 chainId;
239
assembly { chainId := chainid() }
240
return chainId;
241
}
242
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
5
902
119
151
632
85
Comments to Code 151/632 = 23%

Last modified 4mo ago