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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Orca

39%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Orca

Final score:39%
Date:28 Mar 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:39%

FAIL

Protocol Website:https://www.orca.so/

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
Solana
#QuestionAnswer
97%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.70%
5.100
67%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.40%
9.50%
26%
10.0%
11.30%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
61%
16.70%
17.0%
0%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.0%
25.0%
0%
26.0
27.No
28.No
Total:39%

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 2023. 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%

Orca's whirlpool contracts are listed in their 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: 100%

Contracts are used 100+ times a day, 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/orca-so

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: 70%

Orca's whirlpool repository has 10 commits and 9 branches.

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

The team is public, and contributors cross reference their commitment to the protocol on personal social media.

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

67%

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.orca.so/

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented.

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: 40%

Orca covers its whirlpool offering with some function documentation, though this is more of an instructional nature. More function-specific documentation would be of more utility.

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: 50%

There is some good software documentation, there is also good traceability. Users can easily trace the documentation to the code itself. Given that there is no documentation for the swap, we will award half marks here.

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

26%

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

Answer: 0%

On their Whirlpool contract, Orca documents a test to code ratio of just 5%.

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: 30%

There is evidence of limited testing in Orca's whirlpool repository.

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

Orca provides scripts and instructions to run their tests in their GitHub 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%

There is no report of Orca's test results.

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

Orca has not undergone a Formal Verification test.

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

Orca has not documented any deployments to a testnet. However, they do document test instructions on a local validator meaning we will award points for this.

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

61%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 70%

Orca's swap has been audit by a different firm (because it was forked). Orca's whirlpool contract has been audited twice, though only one report is public. As such, we will award points for one audit.

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: 0%

Orca does not offer a bug bounty.

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

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.

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

Answer: 0%

Orca's Admin Control information is not documented.

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%

Orca's relevant contracts are not identified as immutable / upgradeable.

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%

Orca's smart contract ownership is not clearly indicated.

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%

Orca's smart contract change capabilities are not identified in any contracts.

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%

No information relating to Orca's Admin Controls is documented.

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: 0%

Orca's pause control is not documented.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If immutable and no changes possible
100%
If admin control is fully via governance
80%
Robust transaction signing process (7 or more elements)
70%
Adequate transaction signing process (5 or more elements)
60%
Weak transaction signing process (3 or more elements)
0%
No transaction signing process evident
Evidence of audits of signers following the process add 20%

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 0%

Orca has no timelock documentation.

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%

Orca has no timelock documentation.

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

0%

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: 0

Orca's oracle source(s) are not documented.

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

Orca documents no front running mitigation techniques.

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: No

Orca documents no flashloan countermeasures.

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//! State transition types
2
3use crate::curve::base::SwapCurve;
4use arrayref::{array_mut_ref, array_ref, array_refs, mut_array_refs};
5use solana_program::{
6    program_error::ProgramError,
7    program_pack::{IsInitialized, Pack, Sealed},
8    pubkey::Pubkey,
9};
10
11/// Program states.
12#[repr(C)]
13#[derive(Debug, Default, PartialEq)]
14pub struct SwapInfo {
15    /// Initialized state.
16    pub is_initialized: bool,
17    /// Nonce used in program address.
18    /// The program address is created deterministically with the nonce,
19    /// swap program id, and swap account pubkey.  This program address has
20    /// authority over the swap's token A account, token B account, and pool
21    /// token mint.
22    pub nonce: u8,
23
24    /// Program ID of the tokens being exchanged.
25    pub token_program_id: Pubkey,
26
27    /// Token A
28    pub token_a: Pubkey,
29    /// Token B
30    pub token_b: Pubkey,
31
32    /// Pool tokens are issued when A or B tokens are deposited.
33    /// Pool tokens can be withdrawn back to the original A or B token.
34    pub pool_mint: Pubkey,
35
36    /// Mint information for token A
37    pub token_a_mint: Pubkey,
38    /// Mint information for token B
39    pub token_b_mint: Pubkey,
40
41    /// Pool token account to receive trading and / or withdrawal fees
42    pub pool_fee_account: Pubkey,
43
44    /// Swap curve parameters, to be unpacked and used by the SwapCurve, which
45    /// calculates swaps, deposits, and withdrawals
46    pub swap_curve: SwapCurve,
47}
48
49impl Sealed for SwapInfo {}
50impl IsInitialized for SwapInfo {
51    fn is_initialized(&self) -> bool {
52        self.is_initialized
53    }
54}
55
56impl Pack for SwapInfo {
57    const LEN: usize = 291;
58
59    /// Unpacks a byte buffer into a [SwapInfo](struct.SwapInfo.html).
60    fn unpack_from_slice(input: &[u8]) -> Result<Self, ProgramError> {
61        let input = array_ref![input, 0, 291];
62        #[allow(clippy::ptr_offset_with_cast)]
63        let (
64            is_initialized,
65            nonce,
66            token_program_id,
67            token_a,
68            token_b,
69            pool_mint,
70            token_a_mint,
71            token_b_mint,
72            pool_fee_account,
73            swap_curve,
74        ) = array_refs![input, 1, 1, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 65];
75        Ok(Self {
76            is_initialized: match is_initialized {
77                [0] => false,
78                [1] => true,
79                _ => return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData),
80            },
81            nonce: nonce[0],
82            token_program_id: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_program_id),
83            token_a: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_a),
84            token_b: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_b),
85            pool_mint: Pubkey::new_from_array(*pool_mint),
86            token_a_mint: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_a_mint),
87            token_b_mint: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_b_mint),
88            pool_fee_account: Pubkey::new_from_array(*pool_fee_account),
89            swap_curve: SwapCurve::unpack_from_slice(swap_curve)?,
90        })
91    }
92
93    fn pack_into_slice(&self, output: &mut [u8]) {
94        let output = array_mut_ref![output, 0, 291];
95        let (
96            is_initialized,
97            nonce,
98            token_program_id,
99            token_a,
100            token_b,
101            pool_mint,
102            token_a_mint,
103            token_b_mint,
104            pool_fee_account,
105            swap_curve,
106        ) = mut_array_refs![output, 1, 1, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 65];
107        is_initialized[0] = self.is_initialized as u8;
108        nonce[0] = self.nonce;
109        token_program_id.copy_from_slice(self.token_program_id.as_ref());
110        token_a.copy_from_slice(self.token_a.as_ref());
111        token_b.copy_from_slice(self.token_b.as_ref());
112        pool_mint.copy_from_slice(self.pool_mint.as_ref());
113        token_a_mint.copy_from_slice(self.token_a_mint.as_ref());
114        token_b_mint.copy_from_slice(self.token_b_mint.as_ref());
115        pool_fee_account.copy_from_slice(self.pool_fee_account.as_ref());
116        self.swap_curve.pack_into_slice(&mut swap_curve[..]);
117    }
118}
119
120#[cfg(test)]
121mod tests {
122    use super::*;
123    use crate::curve::flat::FlatCurve;
124
125    use std::convert::TryInto;
126
127    #[test]
128    fn test_swap_info_packing() {
129        let nonce = 255;
130        let curve_type_raw: u8 = 1;
131        let curve_type = curve_type_raw.try_into().unwrap();
132        let token_program_id_raw = [1u8; 32];
133        let token_a_raw = [1u8; 32];
134        let token_b_raw = [2u8; 32];
135        let pool_mint_raw = [3u8; 32];
136        let token_a_mint_raw = [4u8; 32];
137        let token_b_mint_raw = [5u8; 32];
138        let pool_fee_account_raw = [6u8; 32];
139        let token_program_id = Pubkey::new_from_array(token_program_id_raw);
140        let token_a = Pubkey::new_from_array(token_a_raw);
141        let token_b = Pubkey::new_from_array(token_b_raw);
142        let pool_mint = Pubkey::new_from_array(pool_mint_raw);
143        let token_a_mint = Pubkey::new_from_array(token_a_mint_raw);
144        let token_b_mint = Pubkey::new_from_array(token_b_mint_raw);
145        let pool_fee_account = Pubkey::new_from_array(pool_fee_account_raw);
146        let trade_fee_numerator = 1;
147        let trade_fee_denominator = 4;
148        let owner_trade_fee_numerator = 3;
149        let owner_trade_fee_denominator = 10;
150        let owner_withdraw_fee_numerator = 2;
151        let owner_withdraw_fee_denominator = 7;
152        let host_fee_numerator = 5;
153        let host_fee_denominator = 20;
154        let calculator = Box::new(FlatCurve {
155            trade_fee_numerator,
156            trade_fee_denominator,
157            owner_trade_fee_numerator,
158            owner_trade_fee_denominator,
159            owner_withdraw_fee_numerator,
160            owner_withdraw_fee_denominator,
161            host_fee_numerator,
162            host_fee_denominator,
163        });
164        let swap_curve = SwapCurve {
165            curve_type,
166            calculator,
167        };
168        let is_initialized = true;
169        let swap_info = SwapInfo {
170            is_initialized,
171            nonce,
172            token_program_id,
173            token_a,
174            token_b,
175            pool_mint,
176            token_a_mint,
177            token_b_mint,
178            pool_fee_account,
179            swap_curve,
180        };
181
182        let mut packed = [0u8; SwapInfo::LEN];
183        SwapInfo::pack_into_slice(&swap_info, &mut packed);
184        let unpacked = SwapInfo::unpack(&packed).unwrap();
185        assert_eq!(swap_info, unpacked);
186
187        let mut packed = vec![];
188        packed.push(1u8);
189        packed.push(nonce);
190        packed.extend_from_slice(&token_program_id_raw);
191        packed.extend_from_slice(&token_a_raw);
192        packed.extend_from_slice(&token_b_raw);
193        packed.extend_from_slice(&pool_mint_raw);
194        packed.extend_from_slice(&token_a_mint_raw);
195        packed.extend_from_slice(&token_b_mint_raw);
196        packed.extend_from_slice(&pool_fee_account_raw);
197        packed.push(curve_type_raw);
198        packed.extend_from_slice(&trade_fee_numerator.to_le_bytes());
199        packed.extend_from_slice(&trade_fee_denominator.to_le_bytes());
200        packed.extend_from_slice(&owner_trade_fee_numerator.to_le_bytes());
201        packed.extend_from_slice(&owner_trade_fee_denominator.to_le_bytes());
202        packed.extend_from_slice(&owner_withdraw_fee_numerator.to_le_bytes());
203        packed.extend_from_slice(&owner_withdraw_fee_denominator.to_le_bytes());
204        packed.extend_from_slice(&host_fee_numerator.to_le_bytes());
205        packed.extend_from_slice(&host_fee_denominator.to_le_bytes());
206        let unpacked = SwapInfo::unpack(&packed).unwrap();
207        assert_eq!(swap_info, unpacked);
208
209        let packed = [0u8; SwapInfo::LEN];
210        let swap_info: SwapInfo = Default::default();
211        let unpack_unchecked = SwapInfo::unpack_unchecked(&packed).unwrap();
212        assert_eq!(unpack_unchecked, swap_info);
213        let err = SwapInfo::unpack(&packed).unwrap_err();
214        assert_eq!(err, ProgramError::UninitializedAccount);
215    }
216}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
TypeScript
11
4826
158
246
206
4422
166

Tests to Code: 206 / 4422 = 5 %