If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
PASS
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 at website https://docs.instadapp.io/networks/mainnet, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. Is the code actively being used? (%)
Activity is 12 transactions a day on contract 0x2971AdFa57b20E5a416aE5a708A8655A9c74f723, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
GitHub: https://github.com/instadapp.
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? (%)
There are 431 commits and 4 branches, making Instadapp's repository healthy.
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)
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.
7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
The basic software functions are covered by the documentation.
8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
Instadapp documents the software functions of all their major mainnet contracts, except for the Implementations contracts in addition to the TimeLock and Governance contracts.
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 (%)
Instadapp lists all of their functions and describes their use cases without providing a visual representation of their implementation within the protocol's source code. Although they do this for their SDK guide amongst others, they do not do this for their main smart contracts.
11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
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) (%)
An OpenZeppelin audit mentions "sparse" code coverage, which indicates tests have been run, but given the TtC value these tests are incomplete.
13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/InstaDApp/smart-contract
14. Report of the results (%)
No test report was found.
15. Formal Verification test done (%)
No formal verification could be found.
16. Stress Testing environment (%)
Evidence of testing on the Kovan testnet could be found.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)
PeckShield and Samczsun have conducted a total of 3 audits over the past 18 months. Although only one of these audits was performed before the Instadapp v2 mainnet launch, the persistent publishing of pre-launch smart contract audit reports proves that the protocol rigorously checks their code before release at any occasion, hence the 100% score for this metric. Notes On V2 Audit Report: Instadapp has confirmed but not resolved the low-severity issue of lack of sanity checks highlighted by the PeckShield team. A heightened frequency of these checks would be needed in order to properly validate the argument length of the updateConnectors() function within the InstaConnectorsV2 contract. Not regularly performing the needed sanity checks could lead to outdated internal mapping of the connectors which could result in lack of optimization and potential bugs. PeckShield has underlined a medium-risk issue where Instadapp has a weakness in their master contract where connectors are added with the potential to execute the code of users' smart accounts via the delegateCall() function. This would effectively allow the access and management of user asserts. However, Instadapp has said that they would implement PeckShield's recommendation of governing this master contract via a DAO. However, there is no clear evidence that this has actually been implemented within the smart contracts' code.
18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)
Instadapp's bug bounty program rewards up to $50,000 and is active.
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 (%)
The OpenZeppelin audit contains information detailing the access controls, but this was not mentioned in the docs. There is also additional DAO information in their blog article about governance.
20. Is the information clear and complete (%)
21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)
The description of the access controls is very well explained in Instadapp's blog article about their DAO-based governance. Users are clearly updated on the fact that they now govern the protocol, and why their funds are safer this way.
22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)
Pause control information could not be found.
1pragma solidity ^0.7.0;
2pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
3
4/**
5 * @title InstaAccount.
6 * @dev DeFi Smart Account Wallet.
7 */
8
9interface IndexInterface {
10 function connectors(uint version) external view returns (address);
11 function check(uint version) external view returns (address);
12 function list() external view returns (address);
13}
14
15interface ConnectorsInterface {
16 function isConnector(address[] calldata logicAddr) external view returns (bool);
17 function isStaticConnector(address[] calldata logicAddr) external view returns (bool);
18}
19
20interface CheckInterface {
21 function isOk() external view returns (bool);
22}
23
24interface ListInterface {
25 function addAuth(address user) external;
26 function removeAuth(address user) external;
27}
28
29
30contract Record {
31
32 event LogEnable(address indexed user);
33 event LogDisable(address indexed user);
34 event LogSwitchShield(bool _shield);
35
36 // InstaIndex Address.
37 address public immutable instaIndex;
38 // The Account Module Version.
39 uint public constant version = 1;
40 // Auth Module(Address of Auth => bool).
41 mapping (address => bool) private auth;
42 // Is shield true/false.
43 bool public shield;
44
45 constructor (address _instaIndex) {
46 instaIndex = _instaIndex;
47 }
48
49 /**
50 * @dev Check for Auth if enabled.
51 * @param user address/user/owner.
52 */
53 function isAuth(address user) public view returns (bool) {
54 return auth[user];
55 }
56
57 /**
58 * @dev Change Shield State.
59 */
60 function switchShield(bool _shield) external {
61 require(auth[msg.sender], "not-self");
62 require(shield != _shield, "shield is set");
63 shield = _shield;
64 emit LogSwitchShield(shield);
65 }
66
67 /**
68 * @dev Enable New User.
69 * @param user Owner of the Smart Account.
70 */
71 function enable(address user) public {
72 require(msg.sender == address(this) || msg.sender == instaIndex, "not-self-index");
73 require(user != address(0), "not-valid");
74 require(!auth[user], "already-enabled");
75 auth[user] = true;
76 ListInterface(IndexInterface(instaIndex).list()).addAuth(user);
77 emit LogEnable(user);
78 }
79
80 /**
81 * @dev Disable User.
82 * @param user Owner of the Smart Account.
83 */
84 function disable(address user) public {
85 require(msg.sender == address(this), "not-self");
86 require(user != address(0), "not-valid");
87 require(auth[user], "already-disabled");
88 delete auth[user];
89 ListInterface(IndexInterface(instaIndex).list()).removeAuth(user);
90 emit LogDisable(user);
91 }
92
93}
94
95contract InstaAccount is Record {
96
97 constructor (address _instaIndex) public Record(_instaIndex) {
98 }
99
100 event LogCast(address indexed origin, address indexed sender, uint value);
101
102 receive() external payable {}
103
104 /*
105 * @dev Delegate the calls to Connector And this function is ran by cast().
106 * @param _target Target to of Connector.
107 * @param _data CallData of function in Connector.
108 */
109 function spell(address _target, bytes memory _data) internal {
110 require(_target != address(0), "target-invalid");
111 assembly {
112 let succeeded := delegatecall(gas(), _target, add(_data, 0x20), mload(_data), 0, 0)
113
114 switch iszero(succeeded)
115 case 1 {
116 // throw if delegatecall failed
117 let size := returndatasize()
118 returndatacopy(0x00, 0x00, size)
119 revert(0x00, size)
120 }
121 }
122 }
123
124 /*
125 * @dev This is the main function, Where all the different functions are called
126 * from Smart Account.
127 * @param _targets Array of Target(s) to of Connector.
128 * @param _datas Array of Calldata(S) of function.
129 */
130 function cast(
131 address[] calldata _targets,
132 bytes[] calldata _datas,
133 address _origin
134 )
135 external
136 payable
137 {
138 require(isAuth(msg.sender) || msg.sender == instaIndex, "permission-denied");
139 require(_targets.length == _datas.length , "array-length-invalid");
140 IndexInterface indexContract = IndexInterface(instaIndex);
141 bool isShield = shield;
142 if (!isShield) {
143 require(ConnectorsInterface(indexContract.connectors(version)).isConnector(_targets), "not-connector");
144 } else {
145 require(ConnectorsInterface(indexContract.connectors(version)).isStaticConnector(_targets), "not-static-connector");
146 }
147 for (uint i = 0; i < _targets.length; i++) {
148 spell(_targets[i], _datas[i]);
149 }
150 address _check = indexContract.check(version);
151 if (_check != address(0) && !isShield) require(CheckInterface(_check).isOk(), "not-ok");
152 emit LogCast(_origin, msg.sender, msg.value);
153 }
154
155}
Comments to Code: 1120 / 6660 = 17 %
Tests to Code: 207 / 6660 = 3 %