P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Keep Network Process Quality Review
Score: 85%

Overview

This is a Keep Network Process Quality Review completed on August 12th 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 85%, a PASS. 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: 70%
They are available at website https://github.com/keep-network/keep-subgraph/blob/master/subgraph.yaml, as indicated in the Appendix.
Note: Gave 70% instead of 40% because although the addresses are in a subgraph, the location of that subgraph, and the fact that it contains the core contract addresses, is clearly labelled in the Keep GitHub repository.
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

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 addresses is up to date. This is a very important question towards the final score.

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

Answer: 100%
Activity is over 10 transactions a day on contract TokenGrant.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: 100%
With 14,316 commits and 182 branches, this is a very healthy 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

5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
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: Yes

8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 100%
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

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

Answer: 47%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 47% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Note: Commenting quality is very good, so maybe look at increasing the score based on that.
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: 60%
There are many good examples of clear association between the Keeper software documentation and its implementation in code at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.8 and onward), as well as in https://github.com/keep-network/keep-core/tree/main/docs/rfc. However, for it to be considered explicit, there have to be numerous examples of how each main function is impemented within code through visual representation, hence the 60%.
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 258% 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: 75%
There is no evidence of code coverage in any of the Keep Network documentation, nor in their ConsenSys audit report, Trail of Bits audit report, or in the Sergi Delgado audit report. However, Keep Network has very robust testing and CI in their software repositories.
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

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no evidence of a Keep Network test result report in their software 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%
No evidence of a Keep Network Formal Verification test was found in their documentation or in further web research.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is evidence of Keep Network's testnet smart contract usage in their ropsten subgraph at https://github.com/keep-network/keep-subgraph/blob/master/subgraph.ropsten.yaml.

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: 90%
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: 70%
Keep Network has an active Bug Bounty Program that rewards up to 1M $KEEP for the most critical of finds. As of right now, this equates to roughly 300k, with a token price of 0.30$.
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: 100%
There is a "Governance" section in their documentation which is clearly labelled and accessible to all users at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.33).
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: 100%
All contracts are described as immutable on p.34 of the Keep Network documentation at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf, as well as in their mainnet launch Medium article.
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%

21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 100%
All contracts are described as immutable on p.34 of the Keep Network documentation at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf, as well as in their mainnet launch Medium article.
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

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 100%
Contracts are immutable, but Keep Network still implemented a emergency pause function which is documented at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.34).
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

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
/// @title TokenGrant
2
/// @notice A token grant contract for a specified standard ERC20Burnable token.
3
/// Has additional functionality to stake delegate/undelegate token grants.
4
/// Tokens are granted to the grantee via unlocking scheme and can be
5
/// withdrawn gradually based on the unlocking schedule cliff and unlocking duration.
6
/// Optionally grant can be revoked by the token grant manager.
7
contract TokenGrant {
8
using SafeMath for uint256;
9
using UnlockingSchedule for uint256;
10
using SafeERC20 for ERC20Burnable;
11
using BytesLib for bytes;
12
using AddressArrayUtils for address[];
13
14
event TokenGrantCreated(uint256 id);
15
event TokenGrantWithdrawn(uint256 indexed grantId, uint256 amount);
16
event TokenGrantStaked(
17
uint256 indexed grantId,
18
uint256 amount,
19
address operator
20
);
21
event TokenGrantRevoked(uint256 id);
22
23
event StakingContractAuthorized(
24
address indexed grantManager,
25
address stakingContract
26
);
27
28
struct Grant {
29
address grantManager; // Token grant manager.
30
address grantee; // Address to which granted tokens are going to be withdrawn.
31
uint256 revokedAt; // Timestamp at which grant was revoked by the grant manager.
32
uint256 revokedAmount; // The number of tokens revoked from the grantee.
33
uint256 revokedWithdrawn; // The number of tokens returned to the grant creator.
34
bool revocable; // Whether grant manager can revoke the grant.
35
uint256 amount; // Amount of tokens to be granted.
36
uint256 duration; // Duration in seconds of the period in which the granted tokens will unlock.
37
uint256 start; // Timestamp at which the linear unlocking schedule will start.
38
uint256 cliff; // Timestamp before which no tokens will be unlocked.
39
uint256 withdrawn; // Amount that was withdrawn to the grantee.
40
uint256 staked; // Amount that was staked by the grantee.
41
GrantStakingPolicy stakingPolicy;
42
}
43
44
uint256 public numGrants;
45
46
ERC20Burnable public token;
47
48
// Staking contracts authorized by the given grant manager.
49
// grant manager -> staking contract -> authorized?
50
mapping(address => mapping(address => bool)) internal stakingContracts;
51
52
// Token grants.
53
mapping(uint256 => Grant) public grants;
54
55
// Token grants stakes.
56
mapping(address => TokenGrantStake) public grantStakes;
57
58
// Mapping of token grant IDs per particular address
59
// involved in a grant as a grantee or as a grant manager.
60
mapping(address => uint256[]) public grantIndices;
61
62
// Token grants balances. Sum of all granted tokens to a grantee.
63
// This includes granted tokens that are already unlocked and
64
// available to be withdrawn to the grantee
65
mapping(address => uint256) public balances;
66
67
// Mapping of operator addresses per particular grantee address.
68
mapping(address => address[]) public granteesToOperators;
69
70
/// @notice Creates a token grant contract for a provided Standard ERC20Burnable token.
71
/// @param _tokenAddress address of a token that will be linked to this contract.
72
constructor(address _tokenAddress) public {
73
require(_tokenAddress != address(0x0), "Token address can't be zero.");
74
token = ERC20Burnable(_tokenAddress);
75
}
76
77
/// @notice Used by grant manager to authorize staking contract with the given
78
/// address.
79
function authorizeStakingContract(address _stakingContract) public {
80
require(
81
_stakingContract != address(0x0),
82
"Staking contract address can't be zero"
83
);
84
stakingContracts[msg.sender][_stakingContract] = true;
85
emit StakingContractAuthorized(msg.sender, _stakingContract);
86
}
87
88
/// @notice Gets the amount of granted tokens to the specified address.
89
/// @param _owner The address to query the grants balance of.
90
/// @return An uint256 representing the grants balance owned by the passed address.
91
function balanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
92
return balances[_owner];
93
}
94
95
/// @notice Gets the stake balance of the specified address.
96
/// @param _address The address to query the balance of.
97
/// @return An uint256 representing the amount staked by the passed address.
98
function stakeBalanceOf(address _address)
99
public
100
view
101
returns (uint256 balance)
102
{
103
for (uint256 i = 0; i < grantIndices[_address].length; i++) {
104
uint256 id = grantIndices[_address][i];
105
balance += grants[id].staked;
106
}
107
return balance;
108
}
109
110
/// @notice Gets grant by ID. Returns only basic grant data.
111
/// If you need unlocking schedule for the grant you must call `getGrantUnlockingSchedule()`
112
/// This is to avoid Ethereum `Stack too deep` issue described here:
113
/// https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/2400/error-stack-too-deep-try-removing-local-variables
114
/// @param _id ID of the token grant.
115
/// @return amount The amount of tokens the grant provides.
116
/// @return withdrawn The amount of tokens that have already been withdrawn
117
/// from the grant.
118
/// @return staked The amount of tokens that have been staked from the grant.
119
/// @return revoked A boolean indicating whether the grant has been revoked,
120
// which is to say that it is no longer unlocking.
121
// @return grantee The grantee of grant.
122
function getGrant(uint256 _id)
123
public
124
view
125
returns (
126
uint256 amount,
127
uint256 withdrawn,
128
uint256 staked,
129
uint256 revokedAmount,
130
uint256 revokedAt,
131
address grantee
132
)
133
{
134
return (
135
grants[_id].amount,
136
grants[_id].withdrawn,
137
grants[_id].staked,
138
grants[_id].revokedAmount,
139
grants[_id].revokedAt,
140
grants[_id].grantee
141
);
142
}
143
144
/// @notice Gets grant unlocking schedule by grant ID.
145
/// @param _id ID of the token grant.
146
/// @return grantManager The address designated as the manager of the grant,
147
/// which is the only address that can revoke this grant.
148
/// @return duration The duration, in seconds, during which the tokens will
149
/// unlocking linearly.
150
/// @return start The start time, as a timestamp comparing to `now`.
151
/// @return cliff The timestamp, before which none of the tokens in the grant
152
/// will be unlocked, and after which a linear amount based on
153
/// the time elapsed since the start will be unlocked.
154
/// @return policy The address of the grant's staking policy.
155
function getGrantUnlockingSchedule(uint256 _id)
156
public
157
view
158
returns (
159
address grantManager,
160
uint256 duration,
161
uint256 start,
162
uint256 cliff,
163
address policy
164
)
165
{
166
return (
167
grants[_id].grantManager,
168
grants[_id].duration,
169
grants[_id].start,
170
grants[_id].cliff,
171
address(grants[_id].stakingPolicy)
172
);
173
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
52
11125
1261
3140
6724
529
Comments to Code 3140/6724 = %

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
70
21053
2867
866
17320
89
Tests to Code 17320/6724 = 258%
Last modified 5d ago