P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Harvest Finance V2 Process Quality Review
Score: 48%

Overview

This is a Harvest Finance V2 Process Quality Review completed on 05/10/2021. 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 48%, 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: Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Polygon
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%
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: 70%
Activity is more than 10 transactions a week on contract Harvest Deployer, 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: 30%
With one branch and 47 commits, Harvest Finance's contract repository has a development history a few weeks short of a ripe fall harvest.
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

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 harvest finance team remains anonymous.

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
Neither the docs nor the repository document basic software functions.

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: 20%
A detailed protocol architecture diagram clearly defines how the protocols interact with each other and API responses assist the documentation, but more explanation in language of all contracts is needed.
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: 43%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 43% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Guidance: 100% CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code 90-70% CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code 60-20% CtC > 20 Some useful commenting 0% CtC < 20 No useful commenting

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

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

Answer: 0%
As there are no smart contract software functions documented in the Harvest Finance documentation, it is impossible for us to evaluate their traceability towards the implementation in the protocol's source code.
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 386% 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%
No code coverage test was found, but a healthy test to code ratio indicates significant testing.
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: 100%
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
No formal verification has been conducted.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
No mention of deployment to a testnet was found.

Security

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 70%
Four audits were conducted on Harvest after code had been deployed. The changes were implemented.
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 results public and implemented or not required
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%
Harvest uses Immunefi's active program and offer a max bounty of $200k.
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%
There is no access control information in the documentation - the only mention of it was found in an article alarming potential users of the single admin key being centralized in the hands of anonymous developers.
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%
No access control information is documented.
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%
No admin control information was found.
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%
There is no mention of pause control in the documentation.
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 0.5.16;
2
3
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/math/Math.sol";
4
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
5
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
6
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
7
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol";
8
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20Detailed.sol";
9
import "./hardworkInterface/IStrategy.sol";
10
import "./hardworkInterface/IStrategyV2.sol";
11
import "./hardworkInterface/IVault.sol";
12
import "./hardworkInterface/IController.sol";
13
import "./hardworkInterface/IUpgradeSource.sol";
14
import "./ControllableInit.sol";
15
import "./VaultStorage.sol";
16
17
contract Vault is ERC20, ERC20Detailed, IVault, IUpgradeSource, ControllableInit, VaultStorage {
18
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
19
using Address for address;
20
using SafeMath for uint256;
21
22
event Withdraw(address indexed beneficiary, uint256 amount);
23
event Deposit(address indexed beneficiary, uint256 amount);
24
event Invest(uint256 amount);
25
event StrategyAnnounced(address newStrategy, uint256 time);
26
event StrategyChanged(address newStrategy, address oldStrategy);
27
28
modifier whenStrategyDefined() {
29
require(address(strategy()) != address(0), "Strategy must be defined");
30
_;
31
}
32
33
// Only smart contracts will be affected by this modifier
34
modifier defense() {
35
require(
36
(msg.sender == tx.origin) || // If it is a normal user and not smart contract,
37
// then the requirement will pass
38
!IController(controller()).greyList(msg.sender), // If it is a smart contract, then
39
"This smart contract has been grey listed" // make sure that it is not on our greyList.
40
);
41
_;
42
}
43
44
constructor() public {
45
}
46
47
// the function is name differently to not cause inheritance clash in truffle and allows tests
48
function initializeVault(address _storage,
49
address _underlying,
50
uint256 _toInvestNumerator,
51
uint256 _toInvestDenominator
52
) public initializer {
53
require(_toInvestNumerator <= _toInvestDenominator, "cannot invest more than 100%");
54
require(_toInvestDenominator != 0, "cannot divide by 0");
55
56
ERC20Detailed.initialize(
57
string(abi.encodePacked("FARM_", ERC20Detailed(_underlying).symbol())),
58
string(abi.encodePacked("f", ERC20Detailed(_underlying).symbol())),
59
ERC20Detailed(_underlying).decimals()
60
);
61
ControllableInit.initialize(
62
_storage
63
);
64
65
uint256 underlyingUnit = 10 ** uint256(ERC20Detailed(address(_underlying)).decimals());
66
uint256 implementationDelay = 12 hours;
67
uint256 strategyChangeDelay = 12 hours;
68
VaultStorage.initialize(
69
_underlying,
70
_toInvestNumerator,
71
_toInvestDenominator,
72
underlyingUnit,
73
implementationDelay,
74
strategyChangeDelay
75
);
76
}
77
78
function strategy() public view returns(address) {
79
return _strategy();
80
}
81
82
function underlying() public view returns(address) {
83
return _underlying();
84
}
85
86
function underlyingUnit() public view returns(uint256) {
87
return _underlyingUnit();
88
}
89
90
function vaultFractionToInvestNumerator() public view returns(uint256) {
91
return _vaultFractionToInvestNumerator();
92
}
93
94
function vaultFractionToInvestDenominator() public view returns(uint256) {
95
return _vaultFractionToInvestDenominator();
96
}
97
98
function nextImplementation() public view returns(address) {
99
return _nextImplementation();
100
}
101
102
function nextImplementationTimestamp() public view returns(uint256) {
103
return _nextImplementationTimestamp();
104
}
105
106
function nextImplementationDelay() public view returns(uint256) {
107
return _nextImplementationDelay();
108
}
109
110
/**
111
* Chooses the best strategy and re-invests. If the strategy did not change, it just calls
112
* doHardWork on the current strategy. Call this through controller to claim hard rewards.
113
*/
114
function doHardWork() external whenStrategyDefined onlyControllerOrGovernance {
115
uint256 sharePriceBeforeHardWork = getPricePerFullShare();
116
if (_withdrawBeforeReinvesting()) {
117
IStrategy(strategy()).withdrawAllToVault();
118
}
119
120
// ensure that new funds are invested too
121
invest();
122
IStrategy(strategy()).doHardWork();
123
uint256 sharePriceAfterHardWork = getPricePerFullShare();
124
125
if (!allowSharePriceDecrease()) {
126
require(sharePriceBeforeHardWork <= sharePriceAfterHardWork, "Share price should not decrease");
127
}
128
}
129
130
/*
131
* Returns the cash balance across all users in this contract.
132
*/
133
function underlyingBalanceInVault() view public returns (uint256) {
134
return IERC20(underlying()).balanceOf(address(this));
135
}
136
137
/* Returns the current underlying (e.g., DAI's) balance together with
138
* the invested amount (if DAI is invested elsewhere by the strategy).
139
*/
140
function underlyingBalanceWithInvestment() view public returns (uint256) {
141
if (address(strategy()) == address(0)) {
142
// initial state, when not set
143
return underlyingBalanceInVault();
144
}
145
return underlyingBalanceInVault().add(IStrategy(strategy()).investedUnderlyingBalance());
146
}
147
148
function getPricePerFullShare() public view returns (uint256) {
149
return totalSupply() == 0
150
? underlyingUnit()
151
: underlyingUnit().mul(underlyingBalanceWithInvestment()).div(totalSupply());
152
}
153
154
function getEstimatedWithdrawalAmount(uint256 numberOfShares) public view returns (uint256 realTimeCalculatedValue) {
155
return numberOfShares.mul(getPricePerFullShare()).div(underlyingUnit());
156
}
157
158
function underlyingBalanceWithInvestmentForHolder(address holder) view external returns (uint256) {
159
// for compatibility
160
uint256 estimatedWithdrawal = getEstimatedWithdrawalAmount(balanceOf(holder));
161
return estimatedWithdrawal;
162
}
163
164
function futureStrategy() public view returns (address) {
165
return _futureStrategy();
166
}
167
168
function strategyUpdateTime() public view returns (uint256) {
169
return _strategyUpdateTime();
170
}
171
172
function strategyTimeLock() public view returns (uint256) {
173
return _strategyTimeLock();
174
}
175
176
function canUpdateStrategy(address _strategy) public view returns(bool) {
177
return strategy() == address(0) // no strategy was set yet
178
|| (_strategy == futureStrategy()
179
&& block.timestamp > strategyUpdateTime()
180
&& strategyUpdateTime() > 0); // or the timelock has passed
181
}
182
183
/**
184
* Indicates that the strategy update will happen in the future
185
*/
186
function announceStrategyUpdate(address _strategy) public onlyControllerOrGovernance {
187
// records a new timestamp
188
uint256 when = block.timestamp.add(strategyTimeLock());
189
_setStrategyUpdateTime(when);
190
_setFutureStrategy(_strategy);
191
emit StrategyAnnounced(_strategy, when);
192
}
193
194
/**
195
* Finalizes (or cancels) the strategy update by resetting the data
196
*/
197
function finalizeStrategyUpdate() public onlyControllerOrGovernance {
198
_setStrategyUpdateTime(0);
199
_setFutureStrategy(address(0));
200
}
201
202
function setStrategy(address _strategy) public onlyControllerOrGovernance {
203
require(canUpdateStrategy(_strategy),
204
"The strategy exists and switch timelock did not elapse yet");
205
require(_strategy != address(0), "new _strategy cannot be empty");
206
require(IStrategy(_strategy).underlying() == address(underlying()), "Vault underlying must match Strategy underlying");
207
require(IStrategy(_strategy).vault() == address(this), "the strategy does not belong to this vault");
208
209
emit StrategyChanged(_strategy, strategy());
210
if (address(_strategy) != address(strategy())) {
211
if (address(strategy()) != address(0)) { // if the original strategy (no underscore) is defined
212
IERC20(underlying()).safeApprove(address(strategy()), 0);
213
IStrategy(strategy()).withdrawAllToVault();
214
}
215
_setStrategy(_strategy);
216
IERC20(underlying()).safeApprove(address(strategy()), 0);
217
IERC20(underlying()).safeApprove(address(strategy()), uint256(~0));
218
}
219
finalizeStrategyUpdate();
220
}
221
222
function setVaultFractionToInvest(uint256 numerator, uint256 denominator) external onlyGovernance {
223
require(denominator > 0, "denominator must be greater than 0");
224
require(numerator <= denominator, "denominator must be greater than or equal to the numerator");
225
_setVaultFractionToInvestNumerator(numerator);
226
_setVaultFractionToInvestDenominator(denominator);
227
}
228
229
function setWithdrawBeforeReinvesting(bool value) external onlyGovernance {
230
_setWithdrawBeforeReinvesting(value);
231
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
46
5017
807
1271
2939
343
Comments to Code 1271/2939 = 43%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
79
15846
2604
1909
11333
134
Tests to Code 11333/2939 = 386%
Last modified 17d ago