P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Venus.io Process Quality Review
Score: 63%

Overview

This is a Process Quality Review of Venus.io completed on May 19th 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nic of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 63%, a close 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 Smart Chain
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: 40%
They are available in mainnet.json at https://github.com/VenusProtocol/venus-config/tree/master/networks, 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

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 wrt to the final score.

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

Answer: 100%
Activity is around 8000 transactions per day on contract Unitroller, 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: 100%
With 164 commits and 5 branches, this is a robust 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

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

Answer: Yes
Team members can be found at https://blog.venus.io/
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

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
There is evident software function documentation at https://docs.venus.io/docs/unitroller#introduction.

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: 80%
Only the major contracts' functions are documented at https://docs.venus.io/docs/vaicontroller#mint-vai.
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: 59%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 59% 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: 100%
Their API specifically defines all parts of the code. There is clear traceability throughout all of the 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

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%
With a TtC of 146%, this is a well-tested protocol.
As per the SLOC, 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%
There is no evident test for coverage available, but there is a robust testing suite in their repo at https://github.com/VenusProtocol/venus-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 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: Yes
Scripts and instructions to run tests can be found at https://github.com/VenusProtocol/venus-protocol.

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%
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%
They indicate that a formal verification has been done at https://docs.venus.io/docs/security#formal-verification. However, they used the same exact link as the one that leads to their Certik audit. This tells me that no formal verification has been done.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
Their Goerli test net contract addresses are clearly active.
Example of Venus.io Goerli test net smart contract activity: https://goerli.etherscan.io/address/0x627EA49279FD0dE89186A58b8758aD02B6Be2867

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: 50%
Certik did an audit on them on December 16th, 2020. From this come a 70% score. The Certik audit does not seem to have looked at the financial environment at all. It just looks at superficial code aspects. As such it offers minimal value. For this reason the score is dropped 20% to 50%.
Venus.io was launched on the Binance launchpool September 29th, 2020.
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: 0%
There is no evident 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 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: 100%
Governance is easy to find.
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: 25%
a) Contracts are implied as upgradeable in the timelock section --15% b) Type of ownership is not clear -- 0% c) Minimal information implied about changes -- 10%
Score 15+0+10 = 25%
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%
Venus.io describes their contract upgradeability (non-immutable) in very technical terms. https://docs.venus.io/docs/governance#introduction
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%
Documentation of a "Pause Guardian" which is capable of disabling protocol functionality, used only in instances of unforeseen vulnerability. https://docs.venus.io/docs/governance#pause-guardian
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
ragma solidity ^0.5.16;
2
3
/**
4
* @title Careful Math
5
* @author Venus
6
* @notice Derived from OpenZeppelin's SafeMath library
7
* https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-solidity/blob/master/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol
8
*/
9
contract CarefulMath {
10
11
/*
12
* @dev Possible error codes that we can return
13
*/
14
enum MathError {
15
NO_ERROR,
16
DIVISION_BY_ZERO,
17
INTEGER_OVERFLOW,
18
INTEGER_UNDERFLOW
19
}
20
21
/*
22
* @dev Multiplies two numbers, returns an error on overflow.
23
*/
24
function mulUInt(uint a, uint b) internal pure returns (MathError, uint) {
25
if (a == 0) {
26
return (MathError.NO_ERROR, 0);
27
}
28
29
uint c = a * b;
30
31
if (c / a != b) {
32
return (MathError.INTEGER_OVERFLOW, 0);
33
} else {
34
return (MathError.NO_ERROR, c);
35
}
36
}
37
38
/**
39
* @dev Integer division of two numbers, truncating the quotient.
40
*/
41
function divUInt(uint a, uint b) internal pure returns (MathError, uint) {
42
if (b == 0) {
43
return (MathError.DIVISION_BY_ZERO, 0);
44
}
45
46
return (MathError.NO_ERROR, a / b);
47
}
48
49
/**
50
* @dev Subtracts two numbers, returns an error on overflow (i.e. if subtrahend is greater than minuend).
51
*/
52
function subUInt(uint a, uint b) internal pure returns (MathError, uint) {
53
if (b <= a) {
54
return (MathError.NO_ERROR, a - b);
55
} else {
56
return (MathError.INTEGER_UNDERFLOW, 0);
57
}
58
}
59
60
/**
61
* @dev Adds two numbers, returns an error on overflow.
62
*/
63
function addUInt(uint a, uint b) internal pure returns (MathError, uint) {
64
uint c = a + b;
65
66
if (c >= a) {
67
return (MathError.NO_ERROR, c);
68
} else {
69
return (MathError.INTEGER_OVERFLOW, 0);
70
}
71
}
72
73
/**
74
* @dev add a and b and then subtract c
75
*/
76
function addThenSubUInt(uint a, uint b, uint c) internal pure returns (MathError, uint) {
77
(MathError err0, uint sum) = addUInt(a, b);
78
79
if (err0 != MathError.NO_ERROR) {
80
return (err0, 0);
81
}
82
83
return subUInt(sum, c);
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
58
15070
2413
4716
7941
1421
Comments to Code 4716/7941 = 59%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
90
16028
2347
2057
11624
463
Tests to Code 11624/7941 = 146%
Last modified 5d ago