If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
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 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
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.
1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)
They are available in mainnet.json at https://github.com/VenusProtocol/venus-config/tree/master/networks, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. Is the code actively being used? (%)
Activity is around 8000 transactions per day on contract Unitroller, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
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? (%)
With 164 commits and 5 branches, this is a robust software repository.
This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)
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 (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
There is evident software function documentation at https://docs.venus.io/docs/unitroller#introduction.
8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
Only the major contracts' functions are documented at https://docs.venus.io/docs/vaicontroller#mint-vai.
9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)
Their API specifically defines all parts of the code. There is clear traceability throughout all of the documentation.
11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
With a TtC of 146%, this is a well-tested protocol.
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.
12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
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.
13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)
Scripts and instructions to run tests can be found at https://github.com/VenusProtocol/venus-protocol.
14. Report of the results (%)
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub Code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident
15. Formal Verification test done (%)
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 (%)
Their Goerli test net contract addresses are clearly active.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)
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%.
18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)
There is no evident bug bounty program.
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.
19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)
Governance is easy to find.
20. Is the information clear and complete (%)
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%
21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)
Venus.io describes their contract upgradeability (non-immutable) in very technical terms. https://docs.venus.io/docs/governance#introduction
22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)
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
1ragma 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 */
9contract 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);
Comments to Code: 4716 / 7941 = 59 %
Tests to Code: 11624 / 7941 = 146 %