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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Keep Network

85%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Keep Network

Final score:85%
Date:12 Aug 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick
PQR Score:85%

PASS

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
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
88%
1.70%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
85%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.47%
10.60%
68%
11.100%
12.75%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
88%
17.90%
18.70%
100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
Total:85%

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

88%

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: 70%

They are available at website https://github.com/keep-network/keep-subgraph/blob/master/subgraph.yaml, 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 TokenGrant.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: 100%

With 14,316 commits and 182 branches, this is a very healthy 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: Yes

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

85%

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: Yes

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

Answer: 100%

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: 47%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 47% 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: 60%

There are many good examples of clear association between the Keeper software documentation and its implementation in code at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.8 and onward), as well as in https://github.com/keep-network/keep-core/tree/main/docs/rfc. However, for it to be considered explicit, there have to be numerous examples of how each main function is impemented within code through visual representation, hence the 60%.

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

68%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 258% 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: 75%

There is no evidence of code coverage in any of the Keep Network documentation, nor in their ConsenSys audit report, Trail of Bits audit report, or in the Sergi Delgado audit report. However, Keep Network has very robust testing and CI in their software repositories.

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: 0%

There is no evidence of a Keep Network test result report in their software 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%

No evidence of a Keep Network Formal Verification test was found in their documentation or in further web research.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

There is evidence of Keep Network's testnet smart contract usage in their ropsten subgraph at https://github.com/keep-network/keep-subgraph/blob/master/subgraph.ropsten.yaml.

Security

88%

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

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

Answer: 90%

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%

Keep Network has an active Bug Bounty Program that rewards up to 1M $KEEP for the most critical of finds. As of right now, this equates to roughly 300k, with a token price of 0.30$.

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

100%

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: 100%

There is a "Governance" section in their documentation which is clearly labelled and accessible to all users at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.33).

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: 100%

All contracts are described as immutable on p.34 of the Keep Network documentation at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf, as well as in their mainnet launch Medium article.​

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: 100%

All contracts are described as immutable on p.34 of the Keep Network documentation at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf, as well as in their mainnet launch Medium article.​

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: 100%

Contracts are immutable, but Keep Network still implemented a emergency pause function which is documented at https://docs.keep.network/tbtc/index.pdf (p.34).

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.

1/// @title TokenGrant
2/// @notice A token grant contract for a specified standard ERC20Burnable token.
3/// Has additional functionality to stake delegate/undelegate token grants.
4/// Tokens are granted to the grantee via unlocking scheme and can be
5/// withdrawn gradually based on the unlocking schedule cliff and unlocking duration.
6/// Optionally grant can be revoked by the token grant manager.
7contract TokenGrant {
8    using SafeMath for uint256;
9    using UnlockingSchedule for uint256;
10    using SafeERC20 for ERC20Burnable;
11    using BytesLib for bytes;
12    using AddressArrayUtils for address[];
1314    event TokenGrantCreated(uint256 id);
15    event TokenGrantWithdrawn(uint256 indexed grantId, uint256 amount);
16    event TokenGrantStaked(
17        uint256 indexed grantId,
18        uint256 amount,
19        address operator
20    );
21    event TokenGrantRevoked(uint256 id);
2223    event StakingContractAuthorized(
24        address indexed grantManager,
25        address stakingContract
26    );
2728    struct Grant {
29        address grantManager; // Token grant manager.
30        address grantee; // Address to which granted tokens are going to be withdrawn.
31        uint256 revokedAt; // Timestamp at which grant was revoked by the grant manager.
32        uint256 revokedAmount; // The number of tokens revoked from the grantee.
33        uint256 revokedWithdrawn; // The number of tokens returned to the grant creator.
34        bool revocable; // Whether grant manager can revoke the grant.
35        uint256 amount; // Amount of tokens to be granted.
36        uint256 duration; // Duration in seconds of the period in which the granted tokens will unlock.
37        uint256 start; // Timestamp at which the linear unlocking schedule will start.
38        uint256 cliff; // Timestamp before which no tokens will be unlocked.
39        uint256 withdrawn; // Amount that was withdrawn to the grantee.
40        uint256 staked; // Amount that was staked by the grantee.
41        GrantStakingPolicy stakingPolicy;
42    }
4344    uint256 public numGrants;
4546    ERC20Burnable public token;
4748    // Staking contracts authorized by the given grant manager.
49    // grant manager -> staking contract -> authorized?
50    mapping(address => mapping(address => bool)) internal stakingContracts;
5152    // Token grants.
53    mapping(uint256 => Grant) public grants;
5455    // Token grants stakes.
56    mapping(address => TokenGrantStake) public grantStakes;
5758    // Mapping of token grant IDs per particular address
59    // involved in a grant as a grantee or as a grant manager.
60    mapping(address => uint256[]) public grantIndices;
6162    // Token grants balances. Sum of all granted tokens to a grantee.
63    // This includes granted tokens that are already unlocked and
64    // available to be withdrawn to the grantee
65    mapping(address => uint256) public balances;
6667    // Mapping of operator addresses per particular grantee address.
68    mapping(address => address[]) public granteesToOperators;
6970    /// @notice Creates a token grant contract for a provided Standard ERC20Burnable token.
71    /// @param _tokenAddress address of a token that will be linked to this contract.
72    constructor(address _tokenAddress) public {
73        require(_tokenAddress != address(0x0), "Token address can't be zero.");
74        token = ERC20Burnable(_tokenAddress);
75    }
7677    /// @notice Used by grant manager to authorize staking contract with the given
78    /// address.
79    function authorizeStakingContract(address _stakingContract) public {
80        require(
81            _stakingContract != address(0x0),
82            "Staking contract address can't be zero"
83        );
84        stakingContracts[msg.sender][_stakingContract] = true;
85        emit StakingContractAuthorized(msg.sender, _stakingContract);
86    }
8788    /// @notice Gets the amount of granted tokens to the specified address.
89    /// @param _owner The address to query the grants balance of.
90    /// @return An uint256 representing the grants balance owned by the passed address.
91    function balanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
92        return balances[_owner];
93    }
9495    /// @notice Gets the stake balance of the specified address.
96    /// @param _address The address to query the balance of.
97    /// @return An uint256 representing the amount staked by the passed address.
98    function stakeBalanceOf(address _address)
99        public
100        view
101        returns (uint256 balance)
102    {
103        for (uint256 i = 0; i < grantIndices[_address].length; i++) {
104            uint256 id = grantIndices[_address][i];
105            balance += grants[id].staked;
106        }
107        return balance;
108    }
109110    /// @notice Gets grant by ID. Returns only basic grant data.
111    /// If you need unlocking schedule for the grant you must call `getGrantUnlockingSchedule()`
112    /// This is to avoid Ethereum `Stack too deep` issue described here:
113    /// https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/2400/error-stack-too-deep-try-removing-local-variables
114    /// @param _id ID of the token grant.
115    /// @return amount The amount of tokens the grant provides.
116    /// @return withdrawn The amount of tokens that have already been withdrawn
117    ///                   from the grant.
118    /// @return staked The amount of tokens that have been staked from the grant.
119    /// @return revoked A boolean indicating whether the grant has been revoked,
120    //                 which is to say that it is no longer unlocking.
121    // @return grantee The grantee of grant.
122    function getGrant(uint256 _id)
123        public
124        view
125        returns (
126            uint256 amount,
127            uint256 withdrawn,
128            uint256 staked,
129            uint256 revokedAmount,
130            uint256 revokedAt,
131            address grantee
132        )
133    {
134        return (
135            grants[_id].amount,
136            grants[_id].withdrawn,
137            grants[_id].staked,
138            grants[_id].revokedAmount,
139            grants[_id].revokedAt,
140            grants[_id].grantee
141        );
142    }
143144    /// @notice Gets grant unlocking schedule by grant ID.
145    /// @param _id ID of the token grant.
146    /// @return grantManager The address designated as the manager of the grant,
147    ///                      which is the only address that can revoke this grant.
148    /// @return duration The duration, in seconds, during which the tokens will
149    ///                  unlocking linearly.
150    /// @return start The start time, as a timestamp comparing to `now`.
151    /// @return cliff The timestamp, before which none of the tokens in the grant
152    ///               will be unlocked, and after which a linear amount based on
153    ///               the time elapsed since the start will be unlocked.
154    /// @return policy The address of the grant's staking policy.
155    function getGrantUnlockingSchedule(uint256 _id)
156        public
157        view
158        returns (
159            address grantManager,
160            uint256 duration,
161            uint256 start,
162            uint256 cliff,
163            address policy
164        )
165    {
166        return (
167            grants[_id].grantManager,
168            grants[_id].duration,
169            grants[_id].start,
170            grants[_id].cliff,
171            address(grants[_id].stakingPolicy)
172        );
173    }

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
52
11125
1261
3140
6724
529

Comments to Code: 3140 / 6724 =  47 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
70
21053
2867
866
17320
89

Tests to Code: 17320 / 6724 = 258 %