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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Gnosis Safe

76%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Gnosis Safe

Final score:76%
Date:04 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:David J. Desjardins
PQR Score:76%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://gnosis-safe.io/

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
Arbitrum
Avalanche
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Polygon
Aurora
Optimism
Gnosis Chain
Energy Web Chain
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
69%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.50%
9.30%
100%
10.100%
11.99%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.Yes
15.Yes
100%
16.100%
17.100%
13%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.100%
24.0%
25.0%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:76%

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

100%

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%

Gnosis Safe deployments can be found in the README.md of their main GitHub repository. The link then leads to the appropriate deployments.

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: 100%

The main active contract, GnosisSafeProxyFactory.sol (1.3.0), had at least 30 transactions during the last month 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. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/gnosis/safe-contracts

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 595 commits and 7 branches, Gnosis Safe demonstrates a healthy software repository.

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)?

Answer: 100

Most of the team seems to be public. Although many do not link any social media accounts, they use pictures of themselves. Additionally, we found more than 2 developers with socials and legitimate profile pictures here. Where we found the team is documented in our team appendix at the end of this report.

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

69%

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

Location: https://docs.gnosis-safe.io/introduction/the-programmable-account/eoas-vs.-contract-accounts

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented here. However, we would like to see more in-depth documentation on it's architecture, as what is currently displayed is somewhat lackluster.

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: 50%

Software function documentation only covers signatures and API.

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: 30%

There is non-explicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code. The software documentation, however, only covers some of the functions.

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

100%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 1068/4192=255% 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 reviewer's 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

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

Answer: 99%

Gnosis' Safe Contracts Repository has a 99% code coverage.

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/Instructions location: https://github.com/gnosis/safe-contracts#gnosis-safe-contracts

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: 100%

Gnosis has an in depth test report here.

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: Yes

This protocol has undergone formal verification. However, please keep in mind that this was a formal verification of Gnosis Safe V1.0.0, where the verification process was completed on the 27th of February 2019. Gnosis has undergone two version updates since then; 1.2.0 and 1.3.0.

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

This protocol has been deployed to Goerli, Rinkeby, Kovan, Ropsten, and Volta testnets. The addresses can be found under "networkAddresses" in the json files found in this repository.

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

100%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

The latest release and deployment (1.3.0) of Gnosis Safe took place on November 18th 2021.  Gnosis Safe 1.3.0 release was audited by G0 Group's Adam Kolář in May 2021, where no issues were found.  Previous releases of Gnosis Safe were audited over the last 4 years, adding up to a total of 5 different audits.  

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: 100%

The protocol has 3 different immunefi listings; Gnosis, Gnosis Safe, and Gnosis Protocol V2. All of the previous listings have a maximum payout of $54K each, adding up to a total of $162K. This represents ~0.00015% of their $107B TVL. Additionally, Gnosis Chain does have a listing but this will not be counted towards the protocol's bounty.    Gnosis Safe additionally has an inactive program, offering a maximum of $1M in payout.    Although the active program does not cover up to $1M, the combination of their bug bounty programs will award them a 100%.

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

13%

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: 0%

No admin control information could be found. Although Gnosis Safe is very different from DeFi protocols, we feel it is important to still detail that when a new multisig is deployed, no party except the multisig members themselves have control of the contract. Additionally, since change capabilities are not detailed as immutable, admin control information of other contracts are particularly important.

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: 0%

Mutability of contracts is not detailed.

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: 0%

Contract ownership is not detailed.

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: 0%

Smart contract change capabilities are not identified in.

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: 0%

Admin control information could not be located.

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: 100%

Pause control is not applicable to this protocol.

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: 0%

Timelock information is not specified.

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: 0%

Timelock remains unspecified.

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

100%

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 does not use oracles.

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: Yes

Front running cannot be applied to this protocol as it does not use an oracle.

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

Flashloan attacks cannot be applied to this protocol.

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: LGPL-3.0-only
2pragma solidity >=0.7.0 <0.9.0;
3
4import "./GnosisSafeProxy.sol";
5import "./IProxyCreationCallback.sol";
6
7/// @title Proxy Factory - Allows to create new proxy contact and execute a message call to the new proxy within one transaction.
8/// @author Stefan George - <stefan@gnosis.pm>
9contract GnosisSafeProxyFactory {
10    event ProxyCreation(GnosisSafeProxy proxy, address singleton);
11
12    /// @dev Allows to create new proxy contact and execute a message call to the new proxy within one transaction.
13    /// @param singleton Address of singleton contract.
14    /// @param data Payload for message call sent to new proxy contract.
15    function createProxy(address singleton, bytes memory data) public returns (GnosisSafeProxy proxy) {
16        proxy = new GnosisSafeProxy(singleton);
17        if (data.length > 0)
18            // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
19            assembly {
20                if eq(call(gas(), proxy, 0, add(data, 0x20), mload(data), 0, 0), 0) {
21                    revert(0, 0)
22                }
23            }
24        emit ProxyCreation(proxy, singleton);
25    }
26
27    /// @dev Allows to retrieve the runtime code of a deployed Proxy. This can be used to check that the expected Proxy was deployed.
28    function proxyRuntimeCode() public pure returns (bytes memory) {
29        return type(GnosisSafeProxy).runtimeCode;
30    }
31
32    /// @dev Allows to retrieve the creation code used for the Proxy deployment. With this it is easily possible to calculate predicted address.
33    function proxyCreationCode() public pure returns (bytes memory) {
34        return type(GnosisSafeProxy).creationCode;
35    }
36
37    /// @dev Allows to create new proxy contact using CREATE2 but it doesn't run the initializer.
38    ///      This method is only meant as an utility to be called from other methods
39    /// @param _singleton Address of singleton contract.
40    /// @param initializer Payload for message call sent to new proxy contract.
41    /// @param saltNonce Nonce that will be used to generate the salt to calculate the address of the new proxy contract.
42    function deployProxyWithNonce(
43        address _singleton,
44        bytes memory initializer,
45        uint256 saltNonce
46    ) internal returns (GnosisSafeProxy proxy) {
47        // If the initializer changes the proxy address should change too. Hashing the initializer data is cheaper than just concatinating it
48        bytes32 salt = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(keccak256(initializer), saltNonce));
49        bytes memory deploymentData = abi.encodePacked(type(GnosisSafeProxy).creationCode, uint256(uint160(_singleton)));
50        // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
51        assembly {
52            proxy := create2(0x0, add(0x20, deploymentData), mload(deploymentData), salt)
53        }
54        require(address(proxy) != address(0), "Create2 call failed");
55    }
56
57    /// @dev Allows to create new proxy contact and execute a message call to the new proxy within one transaction.
58    /// @param _singleton Address of singleton contract.
59    /// @param initializer Payload for message call sent to new proxy contract.
60    /// @param saltNonce Nonce that will be used to generate the salt to calculate the address of the new proxy contract.
61    function createProxyWithNonce(
62        address _singleton,
63        bytes memory initializer,
64        uint256 saltNonce
65    ) public returns (GnosisSafeProxy proxy) {
66        proxy = deployProxyWithNonce(_singleton, initializer, saltNonce);
67        if (initializer.length > 0)
68            // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
69            assembly {
70                if eq(call(gas(), proxy, 0, add(initializer, 0x20), mload(initializer), 0, 0), 0) {
71                    revert(0, 0)
72                }
73            }
74        emit ProxyCreation(proxy, _singleton);
75    }
76
77    /// @dev Allows to create new proxy contact, execute a message call to the new proxy and call a specified callback within one transaction
78    /// @param _singleton Address of singleton contract.
79    /// @param initializer Payload for message call sent to new proxy contract.
80    /// @param saltNonce Nonce that will be used to generate the salt to calculate the address of the new proxy contract.
81    /// @param callback Callback that will be invoced after the new proxy contract has been successfully deployed and initialized.
82    function createProxyWithCallback(
83        address _singleton,
84        bytes memory initializer,
85        uint256 saltNonce,
86        IProxyCreationCallback callback
87    ) public returns (GnosisSafeProxy proxy) {
88        uint256 saltNonceWithCallback = uint256(keccak256(abi.encodePacked(saltNonce, callback)));
89        proxy = createProxyWithNonce(_singleton, initializer, saltNonceWithCallback);
90        if (address(callback) != address(0)) callback.proxyCreated(proxy, _singleton, initializer, saltNonce);
91    }
92
93    /// @dev Allows to get the address for a new proxy contact created via `createProxyWithNonce`
94    ///      This method is only meant for address calculation purpose when you use an initializer that would revert,
95    ///      therefore the response is returned with a revert. When calling this method set `from` to the address of the proxy factory.
96    /// @param _singleton Address of singleton contract.
97    /// @param initializer Payload for message call sent to new proxy contract.
98    /// @param saltNonce Nonce that will be used to generate the salt to calculate the address of the new proxy contract.
99    function calculateCreateProxyWithNonceAddress(
100        address _singleton,
101        bytes calldata initializer,
102        uint256 saltNonce
103    ) external returns (GnosisSafeProxy proxy) {
104        proxy = deployProxyWithNonce(_singleton, initializer, saltNonce);
105        revert(string(abi.encodePacked(proxy)));
106    }
107}
N/A