If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
PancakeSwap V2 / V3
PASS
Security Incidents
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.
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 contract on the blockchain(s)
- Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
- Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contracts
- Here are all the security steps I took to safeguard these contracts
- Here is an explanation of the control I have to change these smart contracts
- Here is how these smart contracts get information from outside the blockchain (if applicable)
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
83%
This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chains and team aspects. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
Smart contract addresses are easy to find. Docs, developer, smart contract addresses.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Location: https://github.com/pancakeswap
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Pancakeswap is still anon. The PancakeSwap team operates pseudonymously as outlined here.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
Devs responded quickly.
Code Documentation
68%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
The litepaper was on the website footer.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
This protocol's software architecture is not documented.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
Most central software has good documentation. Some of the smaller code is not documented, but most has descriptions of the functions and variables described in a clear and consistent manner. Overall and 80% score.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
60% Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
Document organization is excellent.
Testing
64%
This section covers the testing process of the protocol’s smart contract code previous to its deployment on the mainnet. The document explaining these questions is here.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Test to Code = 27379 / 16422 = 166% which gives a 100% score ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 60 16422 2467 3926 10029 1148 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 60 16422 2467 3926 10029 1148 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $304,029 Estimated Schedule Effort 8.748268 months Estimated People Required 3.087519 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 592925 bytes, 0.593 megabytes (SI) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── C:\Users\User\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\PancakeSwap\Flattened>cd C:\Users\User\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\PancakeSwap\TestingEnv C:\Users\User\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.9\PancakeSwap\TestingEnv>scc.exe ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TypeScript 30 18648 3440 1106 14102 80 JSON 16 6596 0 0 6596 0 JavaScript 14 2094 314 426 1354 145 YAML 1 41 9 0 32 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 61 27379 3763 1532 22084 225 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $696,429 Estimated Schedule Effort 11.986911 months Estimated People Required 5.161615 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 899435 bytes, 0.899 megabytes (SI) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
No code coverage found, but a good set of tests so 50%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No test report found.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No evidence of formal verification is found.
Security
86%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
The protocol has undergone multiple audits before being deployed. These audits were conducted by reputable third-party security firms such as Peckshield, Slowmist, OtterSec, and Halborn. The audit reports are public and cover various aspects of the protocol including Lottery V2, PancakeSwap Factory and Router, Aptos PancakeSwap MasterChef, Aptos PancakeSwap Syrup Pool, and Aptos PancakeSwap DEX. There is no mention of any required changes that were not implemented, indicating high-quality, secure code.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
The list of audits clearly indicates the context end date for each audit. As the software is immutable it implies that all of the audits are relevant. For this reason will give a score of 70%.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
The bug bounty program is run by Pancakeswap itself. It has a respectable $1 million maximum. As per our guidance, this gives a score of 80%.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
No protocol monitoring documentation was found.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
The document mentions the use of Cloudflare for email protection on the website. This can be considered as a measure for DDOS protection, thus fulfilling one of the four elements mentioned in the research instructions. However, there is no clear mention about DNS steps to protect the domain, Intrusion detection protection on the front end, or Unwanted front-end modification detection in the provided documents. [1...]
Admin Controls
54%
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. Is the protocol code immutable or upgradeable? (%)
The code appears immutable.
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
The protocol's documentation does not provide information on the upgradeability of its code in nontechnical terms. There is no mention of either immutable or upgradeable smart contracts, or any clear explanation that details the safety of user investments. Therefore 50% as per guidance.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
The provided documentation does not contain any detailed references or explanations regarding admin addresses, roles, or permissions present in the smart contracts. As such, it is not possible to gauge the level of control and potential influence these entities have over the protocol.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
The documentation of the protocol does mention the admin addresses and the signer of the resources account. However, it does not provide any evidence or arguments to verify that these signers are distinct individuals.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
There is no evident transaction signing policy in the provided documentation. The documents do not mention any specific transaction signing policy or any of the elements listed in the research instructions.
Oracles
88%
This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. These questions are explained in this document.
24. Are Oracles relevant? (Y/N)
Oracles are used in the prediction market.
25. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
75% The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
26. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
There is an answer in the FAQ that covers flash loan attacks.