logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

Visor Finance

45%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Visor Finance

Final score:45%
Date:02 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick
PQR Score:45%

FAIL

Notes

Exploit Report    On 21 Dec 2021, Visor suffered a hack causing preventable loss of 8M a major loss (51% of TVL). This causes a penalty of 30% in place until 21 June 2022.    Details: https://rekt.news/visor-finance-rekt/

Security Incidents

Date:21 Dec 2021
Details: On 21 Dec 2021, Visor suffered a hack causing preventable loss of $8M a major loss (51% of TVL) that was not reimbursed . This causes a penalty of 30% in place until 21 June 2022. The protocol did not recover.
Reference Linklink

Scoring Appendix

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.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Avalanche
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Polygon
Terra
#QuestionAnswer
60%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.No
13%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.21%
10.0%
55%
11.100%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
68%
17.70%
18.50%
0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
Total:45%

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.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

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.

Code And Team

60%

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? (%)

Answer: 100%

They are available at website https://docs.visor.finance/visor-protocol/technical-architecture/visor, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score 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 over 10 transactions a day on contract VisorFactory.sol, 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 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"

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is 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.
No
For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 0%

With 9 commits and 3 branches, this is an underdeveloped 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).

Percentage Score 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: No

The team is anonymous.

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

13%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: No

There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance documentation.

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

Answer: 0%

There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance documentation.

Percentage Score 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: 21%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 21% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage 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

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

Answer: 0%

There are no software functions documented in the Visor Finance documentation. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the traceability towards their implementation in the Visor source code.

Percentage Score 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

55%

11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 144% 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.

Percentage Score 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 a reasonable set of tests, but no indication of code coverage in any of the Visor Finance documentation or in their Certik audit report.​

Percentage Score 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

13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scrips/Instructions location: https://github.com/VisorFinance/hypervisor.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There are no test result reports available in any of the Visor Finance documentation or GitHub repositories.

Percentage Score 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%

There is no evidence of a Visor Finance Formal Verification test in any of their documentation or in further web searches.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of any Visor Finance testnet smart contract usage in any of their documentation.

Security

68%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

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

Answer: 70%

​Certik published a Visor Finance audit report on July 7th 2021, which is after their Hypervisor mainnet launch in late May. Two items of concern from the audit. First re-entracy risks exist and were not resolved. Second the Owner has very high power.

Percentage Score 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 bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 50%

Visor Finance has an active Bug Bounty program with Immunefi at https://immunefi.com/bounty/visorfinance/.

Percentage Score 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

0%

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 (%)

Answer: 0%

There are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance documentation. Based on our reading, this is an upgradeable contract with OnlyOwner and no timelock or multisig.

Percentage Score 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%

There are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance documentation.

Percentage Score 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%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 0%

There are currently no access controls documented in the Visor Finance documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of a Pause Control or similar functions in any of the Visor Finance documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 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

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

Email: rex@defisafety.com
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.

1contract Hypervisor is IHypervisor, Powered, Ownable {
2    using SafeMath for uint256;
3    using EnumerableSet for EnumerableSet.AddressSet;
45    /* constants */
67    // An upper bound on the number of active stakes per vault is required to prevent
8    // calls to rageQuit() from reverting.
9    // With 30 stakes in a vault, ragequit costs 432811 gas which is conservatively lower
10    // than the hardcoded limit of 500k gas on the vault.
11    // This limit is configurable and could be increased in a future deployment.
12    // Ultimately, to avoid a need for fixed upper bounds, the EVM would need to provide
13    // an error code that allows for reliably catching out-of-gas errors on remote calls.
14    uint256 public constant MAX_STAKES_PER_VAULT = 30;
15    uint256 public constant MAX_REWARD_TOKENS = 50;
16    uint256 public constant BASE_SHARES_PER_WEI = 1000000;
17    uint256 public stakeLimit = 2500 ether;
1819    /* storage */
2021    HypervisorData private _hypervisor;
22    mapping(address => VaultData) private _vaults;
23    EnumerableSet.AddressSet private _bonusTokenSet;
24    EnumerableSet.AddressSet private _vaultFactorySet;
2526    /* initializer */
2728    /// @notice Initizalize Hypervisor
29    /// access control: only proxy constructor
30    /// state machine: can only be called once
31    /// state scope: set initialization variables
32    /// token transfer: none
33    /// @param ownerAddress address The admin address
34    /// @param rewardPoolFactory address The factory to use for deploying the RewardPool
35    /// @param powerSwitchFactory address The factory to use for deploying the PowerSwitch
36    /// @param stakingToken address The address of the staking token for this Hypervisor
37    /// @param rewardToken address The address of the reward token for this Hypervisor
38    /// @param rewardScaling RewardScaling The config for reward scaling floor, ceiling, and time
39    constructor(
40        address ownerAddress,
41        address rewardPoolFactory,
42        address powerSwitchFactory,
43        address stakingToken,
44        address rewardToken,
45        RewardScaling memory rewardScaling,
46        uint256 _stakeLimit
47    ) {
48        // the scaling floor must be smaller than ceiling
49        require(rewardScaling.floor <= rewardScaling.ceiling, "Hypervisor: floor above ceiling");
5051        // setting rewardScalingTime to 0 would cause divide by zero error
52        // to disable reward scaling, use rewardScalingFloor == rewardScalingCeiling
53        require(rewardScaling.time != 0, "Hypervisor: scaling time cannot be zero");
5455        // deploy power switch
56        address powerSwitch = IFactory(powerSwitchFactory).create(abi.encode(ownerAddress));
5758        // deploy reward pool
59        address rewardPool = IFactory(rewardPoolFactory).create(abi.encode(powerSwitch));
6061        // set internal configs
62        Ownable.transferOwnership(ownerAddress);
63        Powered._setPowerSwitch(powerSwitch);
6465        // commit to storage
66        _hypervisor.stakingToken = stakingToken;
67        _hypervisor.rewardToken = rewardToken;
68        _hypervisor.rewardPool = rewardPool;
69        _hypervisor.rewardScaling = rewardScaling;
7071        stakeLimit = _stakeLimit;
7273         emit event
74        emit HypervisorCreated(rewardPool, powerSwitch);
75    }
7677    /* getter functions */
7879    function getBonusTokenSetLength() external view override returns (uint256 length) {
80        return _bonusTokenSet.length();
81    }
8283    function getBonusTokenAtIndex(uint256 index)
84        external
85        view
86        override
87        returns (address bonusToken)
88    {
89        return _bonusTokenSet.at(index);
90    }
9192    function getVaultFactorySetLength() external view override returns (uint256 length) {
93        return _vaultFactorySet.length();
94    }
9596    function getVaultFactoryAtIndex(uint256 index)
97        external
98        view
99        override
100        returns (address factory)
101    {
102        return _vaultFactorySet.at(index);
103    }
104105    function isValidVault(address target) public view override returns (bool validity) {
106        // validate target is created from whitelisted vault factory
107        for (uint256 index = 0; index < _vaultFactorySet.length(); index++) {
108            if (IInstanceRegistry(_vaultFactorySet.at(index)).isInstance(target)) {
109                return true;
110            }
111        }
112        // explicit return
113        return false;
114    }
115116    function isValidAddress(address target) public view override returns (bool validity) {
117        // sanity check target for potential input errors
118        return
119            target != address(this) &&
120            target != address(0) &&
121            target != _hypervisor.stakingToken &&
122            target != _hypervisor.rewardToken &&
123            target != _hypervisor.rewardPool &&
124            !_bonusTokenSet.contains(target);
125    }
126127    /* Hypervisor getters */
128129    function getHypervisorData() external view override returns (HypervisorData memory hypervisor) {
130        return _hypervisor;
131    }
132133    function getCurrentUnlockedRewards() public view override returns (uint256 unlockedRewards) {
134        // calculate reward available based on state
135        return getFutureUnlockedRewards(block.timestamp);
136    }
137138    function getFutureUnlockedRewards(uint256 timestamp)
139        public
140        view
141        override
142        returns (uint256 unlockedRewards)
143    {
144        // get reward amount remaining
145        uint256 remainingRewards = IERC20(_hypervisor.rewardToken).balanceOf(_hypervisor.rewardPool);
146        // calculate reward available based on state
147        unlockedRewards = calculateUnlockedRewards(
148            _hypervisor.rewardSchedules,
149            remainingRewards,
150            _hypervisor.rewardSharesOutstanding,
151            timestamp
152        );
153        // explicit return
154        return unlockedRewards;
155    }
156157    function getCurrentTotalStakeUnits() public view override returns (uint256 totalStakeUnits) {
158        // calculate new stake units
159        return getFutureTotalStakeUnits(block.timestamp);
160    }
161162    function getFutureTotalStakeUnits(uint256 timestamp)
163        public
164        view
165        override
166        returns (uint256 totalStakeUnits)
167    {
168        // return early if no change
169        if (timestamp == _hypervisor.lastUpdate) return _hypervisor.totalStakeUnits;
170        // calculate new stake units
171        uint256 newStakeUnits =
172            calculateStakeUnits(_hypervisor.totalStake, _hypervisor.lastUpdate, timestamp);
173        // add to cached total
174        totalStakeUnits = _hypervisor.totalStakeUnits.add(newStakeUnits);
175        // explicit return
176        return totalStakeUnits;
177    }
178179    /* vault getters */
180181    function getVaultData(address vault)
182        external
183        view
184        override
185        returns (VaultData memory vaultData)
186    {
187        return _vaults[vault];
188    }

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
2
515
63
77
375
65

Comments to Code: 77 / 375 =  21 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
2
724
124
60
540
8

Tests to Code: 540 / 375 = 144 %