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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Harvest Finance V2

52%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Harvest Finance V2

Final score:52%
Date:05 Oct 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:52%

FAIL

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
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
63%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.30%
5.No
23%
6.Yes
7.No
8.20%
9.43%
10.0%
75%
11.100%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.100%
15.0%
16.0%
70%
17.70%
18.70%
0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
Total:52%

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 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Code And Team

63%

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%

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 more than 10 transactions a day on contract RewardToken, 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: 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).

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 harvest finance team remains 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

23%

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

Neither the docs nor the repository document basic software functions.

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.

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: 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.

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%

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.

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

75%

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

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.

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%

No code coverage test was found, but a healthy test to code ratio indicates significant testing.

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

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 100%

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%

No formal verification has been conducted.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No mention of deployment to a testnet was found.

Security

70%

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%

Four audits were conducted on Harvest after code had been deployed. The changes were implemented.

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: 70%

Harvest uses Immunefi's active program and offer a max bounty of $200k.

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 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.

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%

No access control information is documented.

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%

No admin control information was found.

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 mention of pause control in the 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.

1pragma solidity 0.5.16;
23import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/math/Math.sol";
4import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
5import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
6import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
7import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol";
8import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20Detailed.sol";
9import "./hardworkInterface/IStrategy.sol";
10import "./hardworkInterface/IStrategyV2.sol";
11import "./hardworkInterface/IVault.sol";
12import "./hardworkInterface/IController.sol";
13import "./hardworkInterface/IUpgradeSource.sol";
14import "./ControllableInit.sol";
15import "./VaultStorage.sol";
1617contract Vault is ERC20, ERC20Detailed, IVault, IUpgradeSource, ControllableInit, VaultStorage {
18  using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
19  using Address for address;
20  using SafeMath for uint256;
2122  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);
2728  modifier whenStrategyDefined() {
29    require(address(strategy()) != address(0), "Strategy must be defined");
30    _;
31  }
3233  // 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  }
4344  constructor() public {
45  }
4647  // 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");
5556    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    );
6465    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  }
7778  function strategy() public view returns(address) {
79    return _strategy();
80  }
8182  function underlying() public view returns(address) {
83    return _underlying();
84  }
8586  function underlyingUnit() public view returns(uint256) {
87    return _underlyingUnit();
88  }
8990  function vaultFractionToInvestNumerator() public view returns(uint256) {
91    return _vaultFractionToInvestNumerator();
92  }
9394  function vaultFractionToInvestDenominator() public view returns(uint256) {
95    return _vaultFractionToInvestDenominator();
96  }
9798  function nextImplementation() public view returns(address) {
99    return _nextImplementation();
100  }
101102  function nextImplementationTimestamp() public view returns(uint256) {
103    return _nextImplementationTimestamp();
104  }
105106  function nextImplementationDelay() public view returns(uint256) {
107    return _nextImplementationDelay();
108  }
109110  /**
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    }
119120    // ensure that new funds are invested too
121    invest();
122    IStrategy(strategy()).doHardWork();
123    uint256 sharePriceAfterHardWork = getPricePerFullShare();
124125    if (!allowSharePriceDecrease()) {
126      require(sharePriceBeforeHardWork <= sharePriceAfterHardWork, "Share price should not decrease");
127    }
128  }
129130  /*
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  }
136137  /* 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  }
147148  function getPricePerFullShare() public view returns (uint256) {
149    return totalSupply() == 0
150        ? underlyingUnit()
151        : underlyingUnit().mul(underlyingBalanceWithInvestment()).div(totalSupply());
152  }
153154  function getEstimatedWithdrawalAmount(uint256 numberOfShares) public view returns (uint256 realTimeCalculatedValue) {
155    return numberOfShares.mul(getPricePerFullShare()).div(underlyingUnit());
156  }
157158  function underlyingBalanceWithInvestmentForHolder(address holder) view external returns (uint256) {
159    // for compatibility
160    uint256 estimatedWithdrawal = getEstimatedWithdrawalAmount(balanceOf(holder));
161    return estimatedWithdrawal;
162  }
163164  function futureStrategy() public view returns (address) {
165    return _futureStrategy();
166  }
167168  function strategyUpdateTime() public view returns (uint256) {
169    return _strategyUpdateTime();
170  }
171172  function strategyTimeLock() public view returns (uint256) {
173    return _strategyTimeLock();
174  }
175176  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  }
182183  /**
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  }
193194  /**
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  }
201202  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");
208209    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  }
221222  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  }
228229  function setWithdrawBeforeReinvesting(bool value) external onlyGovernance {
230    _setWithdrawBeforeReinvesting(value);
231  }

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 %