P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Mars Ecosystem Process Quality Review
Score: 26%

Overview

This is a Mars Ecosystem Process Quality Review completed on November 5th 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by David Desjardins of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 26%, 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 blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Binance Smart Chain
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: 100%
They are available at website https://docs.marsecosystem.com/developer/contract-adresses, 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 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 1000 transactions a day on contract MarsSwapRouter.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: No
Although Mars Ecosystem links their GitHub, you will quickly notice that no actual code pertaining to the protocol is present on this page, only forks, PNG, PDF, JSON, and MD files are present.
Therefore, it can be said that Mars' REAL GitHub is private.
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: 0%
No public repository available.
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

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 files uploaded in the GitHub were uploaded by a single, anonymous contributor.
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: No
No software function documentation in docs.

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%
No software function documentation in docs.
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 be improved by adding content to the software functions 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: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, commenting to code (CtC)is n/a. This is entirely due to the fact that there is no public repository available.
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%
No software documentation in docs.
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: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, the testing to code (TtC) is not available since there is no legitimate public repository available. No software function documentation in docs either.
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 improved 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%
No public repository available. Code coverage also not available in Certik or Slowmist audit reports.
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: No
No public repository available.

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%
No public repository available.
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 formal verification testing.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer:
No evidence of a stress testing environment.

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: 45%
2 audits were conducted and published approximately 2 months after deployment. One by Certik, and one by SlowMist. Strangely enough, SlowMist declares the repository (as seen in appendix) they audited, https://github.com/MarsEcosystem/mars-ecosystem, yet if we attempt to view this repository, you will notice it is no longer accessible as it produces a 404 error.
Note: -25% on this score due to their GitHub being private, and therefore having non-traceable audits. 70-25 = 45%.
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: 50%
Mars Ecosystem has an active bug bounty program with immunefi with a maximum payout of $60 000. This represents approximately 0.012% of their TVL.
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: 0%
No information on admin 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%
Information not available.
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: 0%
Technical information on the functioning of contracts is not present.
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%
No information on pause control can be found.
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
interface IMarsSwapRouter {
2
// ----------- Governor only state changing API -----------
3
4
function setSwapMining(address _swapMining) external;
5
6
// ----------- State changing api -----------
7
8
function addLiquidity(
9
address tokenA,
10
address tokenB,
11
uint256 amountADesired,
12
uint256 amountBDesired,
13
uint256 amountAMin,
14
uint256 amountBMin,
15
address to,
16
uint256 deadline
17
)
18
external
19
returns (
20
uint256 amountA,
21
uint256 amountB,
22
uint256 liquidity
23
);
24
25
function addLiquidityETH(
26
address token,
27
uint256 amountTokenDesired,
28
uint256 amountTokenMin,
29
uint256 amountETHMin,
30
address to,
31
uint256 deadline
32
)
33
external
34
payable
35
returns (
36
uint256 amountToken,
37
uint256 amountETH,
38
uint256 liquidity
39
);
40
41
function removeLiquidity(
42
address tokenA,
43
address tokenB,
44
uint256 liquidity,
45
uint256 amountAMin,
46
uint256 amountBMin,
47
address to,
48
uint256 deadline
49
) external returns (uint256 amountA, uint256 amountB);
50
51
function removeLiquidityETH(
52
address token,
53
uint256 liquidity,
54
uint256 amountTokenMin,
55
uint256 amountETHMin,
56
address to,
57
uint256 deadline
58
) external returns (uint256 amountToken, uint256 amountETH);
59
60
function removeLiquidityWithPermit(
61
address tokenA,
62
address tokenB,
63
uint256 liquidity,
64
uint256 amountAMin,
65
uint256 amountBMin,
66
address to,
67
uint256 deadline,
68
bool approveMax,
69
uint8 v,
70
bytes32 r,
71
bytes32 s
72
) external returns (uint256 amountA, uint256 amountB);
73
74
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermit(
75
address token,
76
uint256 liquidity,
77
uint256 amountTokenMin,
78
uint256 amountETHMin,
79
address to,
80
uint256 deadline,
81
bool approveMax,
82
uint8 v,
83
bytes32 r,
84
bytes32 s
85
) external returns (uint256 amountToken, uint256 amountETH);
86
87
function swapExactTokensForTokens(
88
uint256 amountIn,
89
uint256 amountOutMin,
90
address[] calldata path,
91
address to,
92
uint256 deadline
93
) external returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
94
95
function swapTokensForExactTokens(
96
uint256 amountOut,
97
uint256 amountInMax,
98
address[] calldata path,
99
address to,
100
uint256 deadline
101
) external returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
102
103
function swapExactETHForTokens(
104
uint256 amountOutMin,
105
address[] calldata path,
106
address to,
107
uint256 deadline
108
) external payable returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
109
110
function swapTokensForExactETH(
111
uint256 amountOut,
112
uint256 amountInMax,
113
address[] calldata path,
114
address to,
115
uint256 deadline
116
) external returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
117
118
function swapExactTokensForETH(
119
uint256 amountIn,
120
uint256 amountOutMin,
121
address[] calldata path,
122
address to,
123
uint256 deadline
124
) external returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
125
126
function swapETHForExactTokens(
127
uint256 amountOut,
128
address[] calldata path,
129
address to,
130
uint256 deadline
131
) external payable returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
132
133
function removeLiquidityETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
134
address token,
135
uint256 liquidity,
136
uint256 amountTokenMin,
137
uint256 amountETHMin,
138
address to,
139
uint256 deadline
140
) external returns (uint256 amountETH);
141
142
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermitSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
143
address token,
144
uint256 liquidity,
145
uint256 amountTokenMin,
146
uint256 amountETHMin,
147
address to,
148
uint256 deadline,
149
bool approveMax,
150
uint8 v,
151
bytes32 r,
152
bytes32 s
153
) external returns (uint256 amountETH);
154
155
function swapExactTokensForTokensSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
156
uint256 amountIn,
157
uint256 amountOutMin,
158
address[] calldata path,
159
address to,
160
uint256 deadline
161
) external;
162
163
function swapExactETHForTokensSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
164
uint256 amountOutMin,
165
address[] calldata path,
166
address to,
167
uint256 deadline
168
) external payable;
169
170
function swapExactTokensForETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
171
uint256 amountIn,
172
uint256 amountOutMin,
173
address[] calldata path,
174
address to,
175
uint256 deadline
176
) external;
177
178
// ----------- Getters -----------
179
180
function factory() external view returns (address);
181
182
function WETH() external view returns (address);
183
184
function swapMining() external view returns (address);
185
186
function quote(
187
uint256 amountA,
188
uint256 reserveA,
189
uint256 reserveB
190
) external pure returns (uint256 amountB);
191
192
function getAmountOut(
193
uint256 amountIn,
194
uint256 reserveIn,
195
uint256 reserveOut,
196
uint256 feeScale
197
) external view returns (uint256 amountOut);
198
199
function getAmountIn(
200
uint256 amountOut,
201
uint256 reserveIn,
202
uint256 reserveOut,
203
uint256 feeScale
204
) external view returns (uint256 amountIn);
205
206
function getAmountsOut(uint256 amountIn, address[] calldata path)
207
external
208
view
209
returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
210
211
function getAmountsIn(uint256 amountOut, address[] calldata path)
212
external
213
view
214
returns (uint256[] memory amounts);
215
}
Copied!

Audit Repository Appendix

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contract

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
Comments to Code = n/a
No code in repository

Javascript Test

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
Tests to Code = n/a
No code or testing in repository
Last modified 1mo ago