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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Gearbox Protocol

88%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Gearbox Protocol

Final score:88%
Date:01 Feb 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:88%

PASS

Protocol Website:

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
97%
1.100%
2.70%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
70%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
96%
16.100%
17.70%
83%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.30%
23.80%
24.100%
25.100%
88%
26.100%
27.No
28.Yes
Total:88%

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.

Smart Contracts & Team

97%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find?(%)

Answer: 100%

Contracts are easily located in the documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, 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. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 70%

Gearbox's WETH Gateway contract has more than 10 transactions a week.

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. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Gearbox's software repository is easily found.

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%

At 120 commits, Gearbox's commitment to development history is clearly redlining in 6th.

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: 100

Multiple Gearbox contributors are public and cross reference themselves on their personal accounts.

Score Guidance:
100%
At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.
50%
At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.
0%
No public team members could be found.

Documentation

100%

The difference between this and the old link is solely the link.    This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

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

Answer: Yes

Gearbox's whitepaper is clearly labelled.

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Gearbox's software architecture is beautifully documented with diagrams, specific references and arrows.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.
No
Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

All major contracts deployed by the protocol are covered in the software function documentation. Governance contracts are covered with a lengthy section in the protocol structure 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. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

The developer docs link to the contract location in Gearbox's repository, making this traceability explicit.

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

70%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol has a test to code ratio of 196%.

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

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 50%

No code coverage report was found, but there is clear and substantial testing undertaken on this protocol.

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 complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scripts can be found in their repository.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 0%

No test reports are evident.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

No formal verification was found.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Smart contracts were deployed to Kovan testnet.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses
No
Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

96%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol has been subject to five separate audits, all of which were completed before deployment.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.
65%
Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.
30%
Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.
Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 70%

Gearbox offers $150K with an active Immunefi program.

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 / the bug bounty program is dead
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.

Admin Controls

83%

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.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 100%

Admin control information is well labelled.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 100%

All relevant contracts are labelled us upgradeable in the docs.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.
80%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)
50%
Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation
0%
Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 100%

Ownership is clearly identified.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 100%

Change capabilities are described exhaustively in software docs.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts
50%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts
0%
The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 30%

This information is in software specific language.

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

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 80%

A pause control is mentioned with elaboration. No evidence of testing is documented.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
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

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

Timelock is implemented within their DAO ownership structure, and is documented at https://dev.gearbox.fi/security/configuration#dao-and-timelock.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.
60%
A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified
30%
A Timelock is identified
0%
No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 100%

The voting structure that serves as a Timelock for the Gearbox protocol governance requires a minimum period of 72 hours. This information can be found at https://docs.gearbox.finance/governance/setup.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.
50%
Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.
0%
No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

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. This is explained in this document.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol uses Chainlink and identifies software functions relating to this.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.
75%
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
50%
Only the Oracle source is identified.
0%
No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: No

No front running countermeasures are documented.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol identifies how it mitigates flashloan attack risk.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: BUSL-1.1
2// Gearbox Protocol. Generalized leverage for DeFi protocols
3// (c) Gearbox Holdings, 2021
4pragma solidity ^0.7.4;
5pragma abicoder v2;
6
7import {EnumerableSet} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/EnumerableSet.sol";
8import {SafeMath} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
9import {Clones} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/proxy/Clones.sol";
10
11import {IAccountFactory} from "../interfaces/IAccountFactory.sol";
12import {IAccountMiner} from "../interfaces/IAccountMiner.sol";
13import {ICreditAccount} from "../interfaces/ICreditAccount.sol";
14import {ICreditManager} from "../interfaces/ICreditManager.sol";
15
16import {AddressProvider} from "./AddressProvider.sol";
17import {ContractsRegister} from "./ContractsRegister.sol";
18import {CreditAccount} from "../credit/CreditAccount.sol";
19import {ACLTrait} from "./ACLTrait.sol";
20import {ReentrancyGuard} from "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
21
22import {DataTypes} from "../libraries/data/Types.sol";
23import {Errors} from "../libraries/helpers/Errors.sol";
24
25/// @title Abstract reusable credit accounts factory
26/// @notice Creates, holds & lend credit accounts to pool contract
27contract AccountFactory is IAccountFactory, ACLTrait, ReentrancyGuard {
28    using EnumerableSet for EnumerableSet.AddressSet;
29
30    //
31    //     head
32    //      ⬇
33    //    -------       -------        -------        -------
34    //   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  ->  address(0)
35    //    -------       -------        -------        -------
36    //                                                   ⬆
37    //                                                  tail
38    //
39
40    // Credit accounts connected list
41    mapping(address => address) private _nextCreditAccount;
42
43    // Head on connected list
44    address public override head;
45
46    // Tail of connected list
47    address public override tail;
48
49    // Address of master credit account for cloning
50    address public masterCreditAccount;
51
52    // Credit accounts list
53    EnumerableSet.AddressSet private creditAccountsSet;
54
55    // List of approvals which is needed during account mining campaign
56    DataTypes.MiningApproval[] public miningApprovals;
57
58    // Contracts register
59    ContractsRegister public _contractsRegister;
60
61    // Flag that there is no mining yet
62    bool public isMiningFinished;
63
64    // Contract version
65    uint256 public constant version = 1;
66
67    modifier creditManagerOnly() {
68        require(
69            _contractsRegister.isCreditManager(msg.sender),
70            Errors.REGISTERED_CREDIT_ACCOUNT_MANAGERS_ONLY
71        );
72        _;
73    }
74
75    /**
76     * @dev constructor
77     * After constructor the list should be as following
78     *
79     *     head
80     *      ⬇
81     *    -------
82     *   |  VA1  | ->   address(0)
83     *    -------
84     *      ⬆
85     *     tail
86     *
87     * @param addressProvider Address of address repository
88     */
89    constructor(address addressProvider) ACLTrait(addressProvider) {
90        require(
91            addressProvider != address(0),
92            Errors.ZERO_ADDRESS_IS_NOT_ALLOWED
93        );
94
95        _contractsRegister = ContractsRegister(
96            AddressProvider(addressProvider).getContractsRegister()
97        ); // T:[AF-1]
98
99        masterCreditAccount = address(new CreditAccount()); // T:[AF-1]
100        CreditAccount(masterCreditAccount).initialize(); // T:[AF-1]
101
102        addCreditAccount(); // T:[AF-1]
103        head = tail; // T:[AF-1]
104        _nextCreditAccount[address(0)] = address(0); // T:[AF-1]
105    }
106
107    /**
108     * @dev Provides a new credit account to the pool. Creates a new one, if needed
109     *
110     *   Before:
111     *  ---------
112     *
113     *     head
114     *      ⬇
115     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
116     *   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  ->  address(0)
117     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
118     *                                                   ⬆
119     *                                                  tail
120     *
121     *   After:
122     *  ---------
123     *
124     *    head
125     *     ⬇
126     *   -------        -------        -------
127     *  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  ->  address(0)
128     *   -------        -------        -------
129     *                                    ⬆
130     *                                   tail
131     *
132     *
133     *   -------
134     *  |  VA1  |  ->  address(0)
135     *   -------
136     *
137     *  If had points the last credit account, it adds a new one
138     *
139     *    head
140     *     ⬇
141     *   -------
142     *  |  VA2  |  ->   address(0)     =>    _addNewCreditAccount()
143     *   -------
144     *     ⬆
145     *    tail
146     *
147     * @return Address of credit account
148     */
149    function takeCreditAccount(
150        uint256 _borrowedAmount,
151        uint256 _cumulativeIndexAtOpen
152    )
153        external
154        override
155        creditManagerOnly // T:[AF-12]
156        returns (address)
157    {
158        // Create a new credit account if no one in stock
159        _checkStock(); // T:[AF-3]
160
161        address result = head;
162        head = _nextCreditAccount[head]; // T:[AF-2]
163        _nextCreditAccount[result] = address(0); // T:[AF-2]
164
165        // Initialize creditManager
166        ICreditAccount(result).connectTo(
167            msg.sender,
168            _borrowedAmount,
169            _cumulativeIndexAtOpen
170        ); // T:[AF-11, 14]
171
172        emit InitializeCreditAccount(result, msg.sender); // T:[AF-5]
173        return result; // T:[AF-14]
174    }
175
176    /**
177     * @dev Takes credit account back and adds it to the stock
178     *
179     *   Before:
180     *  ---------
181     *
182     *     head
183     *      ⬇
184     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
185     *   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  ->  address(0)
186     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
187     *                                                   ⬆
188     *                                                  tail
189     *
190     *   After:
191     *  ---------
192     *
193     *     head
194     *      ⬇
195     *    -------       -------        -------        -------       ---------------
196     *   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  -> |  usedAccount  |  ->  address(0)
197     *    -------       -------        -------        -------       ---------------
198     *                                                                     ⬆
199     *                                                                    tail
200     *
201     *
202     * @param usedAccount Address of used credit account
203     */
204    function returnCreditAccount(address usedAccount)
205        external
206        override
207        creditManagerOnly // T:[AF-12]
208    {
209        require(
210            creditAccountsSet.contains(usedAccount),
211            Errors.AF_EXTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_ARE_FORBIDDEN
212        );
213        require(
214            ICreditAccount(usedAccount).since() != block.number,
215            Errors.AF_CANT_CLOSE_CREDIT_ACCOUNT_IN_THE_SAME_BLOCK
216        ); // T:[CM-20]
217
218        _nextCreditAccount[tail] = usedAccount; // T:[AF-7]
219        tail = usedAccount; // T:[AF-7]
220        emit ReturnCreditAccount(usedAccount); // T:[AF-8]
221    }
222
223    /// @dev Gets next available credit account or address(0) if you are in tail
224    function getNext(address creditAccount)
225        external
226        view
227        override
228        returns (address)
229    {
230        return _nextCreditAccount[creditAccount];
231    }
232
233    /**
234     * @dev Deploys new credit account and adds it to list tail
235     *
236     *   Before:
237     *  ---------
238     *
239     *     head
240     *      ⬇
241     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
242     *   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  ->  address(0)
243     *    -------       -------        -------        -------
244     *                                                   ⬆
245     *                                                  tail
246     *
247     *   After:
248     *  ---------
249     *
250     *     head
251     *      ⬇
252     *    -------       -------        -------        -------       --------------
253     *   |  VA1  | ->  |  VA2  |  ->  |  VA3  |  ->  |  VA4  |  -> |  newAccount  |  ->  address(0)
254     *    -------       -------        -------        -------       --------------
255     *                                                                    ⬆
256     *                                                                   tail
257     *
258     *
259     */

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
TypeScript
29
9166
1633
165
7368
3750
68

Tests to Code: 7368 / 3750 = 196 %