P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
MakerDAO 0.7 Process Quality Review
Score: 81%

Overview

This is a MakerDAO Process Quality Review completed on 14/10/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nick of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 81%, 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 blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Arbitrum,
Harmony, Moonriver, Fantom, Klaytn, xDAI and Sora
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra Celo Arbitrum Solana

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: 20%
They are available at website https://github.com/makerdao/spells-mainnet/blob/master/src/test/addresses_mainnet.sol, as indicated in the Appendix. The documents contain no mention of non-token contract addresses and digging through 250 repositories yielded few results.
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 more than 10 transactions a day on contract Maker: MCD Join DAI, 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%
At 251 repositories with some containing in excess of 800 commits, Maker's development history can be tolerated.
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
Basic software functions are documented.

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

Answer: 100%
Maker's documentation is impressive and covers all deployed contracts in a highly organised fashion.
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: 36%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 36% 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: 60%
There is clear association from the documents to the code, but there is no explicit traceability to the implementation.
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 222% 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%
Code coverage is mentioned, but proof could not be found. Nevertheless, there's evidently heavy testing on this protocol.
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
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/makerdao/spells-mainnet#test

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No test report was found.
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: 100%
Although Maker says that they have undergone Formal Verification testing, there exists no link to a report of any kind. However we will score it as complete.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
Maker uses Kovan testnet.

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: 100%
Maker has undergone multiple audits for many of its products, all of which were conducted shortly before or after contract deployment.
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%
Maker offers a $100K HackerOne bug bounty program.
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%
Maker's Governance and access controls documentations are clearly outlined in their docs. There is in-depth information regarding the governance smart contracts' functionalities, and the admin controls thereof.
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: 90%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% -- contracts are labelled as upgradeable. b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- governance is indicated as the owner. c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30% -- there is detailed information as to what can change in these contracts.
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: 30%
This information is not in clear, non-software language, and does not pertain to users' investments' safety.
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: 80%
A pause control is well documented, though there is no mention of testing. The GitHub repository seems to be mostly deprecated.
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
interface VatLike {
4
function move(address,address,uint256) external;
5
function flux(bytes32,address,address,uint256) external;
6
function ilks(bytes32) external returns (uint256, uint256, uint256, uint256, uint256);
7
function suck(address,address,uint256) external;
8
}
9
10
interface PipLike {
11
function peek() external returns (bytes32, bool);
12
}
13
14
interface SpotterLike {
15
function par() external returns (uint256);
16
function ilks(bytes32) external returns (PipLike, uint256);
17
}
18
19
interface DogLike {
20
function chop(bytes32) external returns (uint256);
21
function digs(bytes32, uint256) external;
22
}
23
24
interface ClipperCallee {
25
function clipperCall(address, uint256, uint256, bytes calldata) external;
26
}
27
28
interface AbacusLike {
29
function price(uint256, uint256) external view returns (uint256);
30
}
31
32
contract Clipper {
33
// --- Auth ---
34
mapping (address => uint256) public wards;
35
function rely(address usr) external auth { wards[usr] = 1; emit Rely(usr); }
36
function deny(address usr) external auth { wards[usr] = 0; emit Deny(usr); }
37
modifier auth {
38
require(wards[msg.sender] == 1, "Clipper/not-authorized");
39
_;
40
}
41
42
// --- Data ---
43
bytes32 immutable public ilk; // Collateral type of this Clipper
44
VatLike immutable public vat; // Core CDP Engine
45
46
DogLike public dog; // Liquidation module
47
address public vow; // Recipient of dai raised in auctions
48
SpotterLike public spotter; // Collateral price module
49
AbacusLike public calc; // Current price calculator
50
51
uint256 public buf; // Multiplicative factor to increase starting price [ray]
52
uint256 public tail; // Time elapsed before auction reset [seconds]
53
uint256 public cusp; // Percentage drop before auction reset [ray]
54
uint64 public chip; // Percentage of tab to suck from vow to incentivize keepers [wad]
55
uint192 public tip; // Flat fee to suck from vow to incentivize keepers [rad]
56
uint256 public chost; // Cache the ilk dust times the ilk chop to prevent excessive SLOADs [rad]
57
58
uint256 public kicks; // Total auctions
59
uint256[] public active; // Array of active auction ids
60
61
struct Sale {
62
uint256 pos; // Index in active array
63
uint256 tab; // Dai to raise [rad]
64
uint256 lot; // collateral to sell [wad]
65
address usr; // Liquidated CDP
66
uint96 tic; // Auction start time
67
uint256 top; // Starting price [ray]
68
}
69
mapping(uint256 => Sale) public sales;
70
71
uint256 internal locked;
72
73
// Levels for circuit breaker
74
// 0: no breaker
75
// 1: no new kick()
76
// 2: no new kick() or redo()
77
// 3: no new kick(), redo(), or take()
78
uint256 public stopped = 0;
79
80
// --- Events ---
81
event Rely(address indexed usr);
82
event Deny(address indexed usr);
83
84
event File(bytes32 indexed what, uint256 data);
85
event File(bytes32 indexed what, address data);
86
87
event Kick(
88
uint256 indexed id,
89
uint256 top,
90
uint256 tab,
91
uint256 lot,
92
address indexed usr,
93
address indexed kpr,
94
uint256 coin
95
);
96
event Take(
97
uint256 indexed id,
98
uint256 max,
99
uint256 price,
100
uint256 owe,
101
uint256 tab,
102
uint256 lot,
103
address indexed usr
104
);
105
event Redo(
106
uint256 indexed id,
107
uint256 top,
108
uint256 tab,
109
uint256 lot,
110
address indexed usr,
111
address indexed kpr,
112
uint256 coin
113
);
114
115
event Yank(uint256 id);
116
117
// --- Init ---
118
constructor(address vat_, address spotter_, address dog_, bytes32 ilk_) public {
119
vat = VatLike(vat_);
120
spotter = SpotterLike(spotter_);
121
dog = DogLike(dog_);
122
ilk = ilk_;
123
buf = RAY;
124
wards[msg.sender] = 1;
125
emit Rely(msg.sender);
126
}
127
128
// --- Synchronization ---
129
modifier lock {
130
require(locked == 0, "Clipper/system-locked");
131
locked = 1;
132
_;
133
locked = 0;
134
}
135
136
modifier isStopped(uint256 level) {
137
require(stopped < level, "Clipper/stopped-incorrect");
138
_;
139
}
140
141
// --- Administration ---
142
function file(bytes32 what, uint256 data) external auth lock {
143
if (what == "buf") buf = data;
144
else if (what == "tail") tail = data; // Time elapsed before auction reset
145
else if (what == "cusp") cusp = data; // Percentage drop before auction reset
146
else if (what == "chip") chip = uint64(data); // Percentage of tab to incentivize (max: 2^64 - 1 => 18.xxx WAD = 18xx%)
147
else if (what == "tip") tip = uint192(data); // Flat fee to incentivize keepers (max: 2^192 - 1 => 6.277T RAD)
148
else if (what == "stopped") stopped = data; // Set breaker (0, 1, 2, or 3)
149
else revert("Clipper/file-unrecognized-param");
150
emit File(what, data);
151
}
152
function file(bytes32 what, address data) external auth lock {
153
if (what == "spotter") spotter = SpotterLike(data);
154
else if (what == "dog") dog = DogLike(data);
155
else if (what == "vow") vow = data;
156
else if (what == "calc") calc = AbacusLike(data);
157
else revert("Clipper/file-unrecognized-param");
158
emit File(what, data);
159
}
160
161
// --- Math ---
162
uint256 constant BLN = 10 ** 9;
163
uint256 constant WAD = 10 ** 18;
164
uint256 constant RAY = 10 ** 27;
165
166
function min(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
167
z = x <= y ? x : y;
168
}
169
function add(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
170
require((z = x + y) >= x);
171
}
172
function sub(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
173
require((z = x - y) <= x);
174
}
175
function mul(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
176
require(y == 0 || (z = x * y) / y == x);
177
}
178
function wmul(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
179
z = mul(x, y) / WAD;
180
}
181
function rmul(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
182
z = mul(x, y) / RAY;
183
}
184
function rdiv(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal pure returns (uint256 z) {
185
z = mul(x, RAY) / y;
186
}
187
188
// --- Auction ---
189
190
// get the price directly from the OSM
191
// Could get this from rmul(Vat.ilks(ilk).spot, Spotter.mat()) instead, but
192
// if mat has changed since the last poke, the resulting value will be
193
// incorrect.
194
function getFeedPrice() internal returns (uint256 feedPrice) {
195
(PipLike pip, ) = spotter.ilks(ilk);
196
(bytes32 val, bool has) = pip.peek();
197
require(has, "Clipper/invalid-price");
198
feedPrice = rdiv(mul(uint256(val), BLN), spotter.par());
199
}
200
201
// start an auction
202
// note: trusts the caller to transfer collateral to the contract
203
// The starting price `top` is obtained as follows:
204
//
205
// top = val * buf / par
206
//
207
// Where `val` is the collateral's unitary value in USD, `buf` is a
208
// multiplicative factor to increase the starting price, and `par` is a
209
// reference per DAI.
210
function kick(
211
uint256 tab, // Debt [rad]
212
uint256 lot, // Collateral [wad]
213
address usr, // Address that will receive any leftover collateral
214
address kpr // Address that will receive incentives
215
) external auth lock isStopped(1) returns (uint256 id) {
216
/ Input validation
217
require(tab > 0, "Clipper/zero-tab");
218
require(lot > 0, "Clipper/zero-lot");
219
require(usr != address(0), "Clipper/zero-usr");
220
id = ++kicks;
221
require(id > 0, "Clipper/overflow");
222
223
active.push(id);
224
225
sales[id].pos = active.length - 1;
226
227
sales[id].tab = tab;
228
sales[id].lot = lot;
229
sales[id].usr = usr;
230
sales[id].tic = uint96(block.timestamp);
231
232
uint256 top;
233
top = rmul(getFeedPrice(), buf);
234
require(top > 0, "Clipper/zero-top-price");
235
sales[id].top = top;
236
237
/ incentive to kick auction
238
uint256 _tip = tip;
239
uint256 _chip = chip;
240
uint256 coin;
241
if (_tip > 0 || _chip > 0) {
242
coin = add(_tip, wmul(tab, _chip));
243
vat.suck(vow, kpr, coin);
244
}
245
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
16
3293
418
756
2119
457
Comments to Code 756/2119 = 36%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
14
6167
1001
456
4710
41
Tests to Code 4710/2119 = 222%
Last modified 5d ago