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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Biswap

12%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Biswap

Final score:12%
Date:30 Jun 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nic of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:12%

FAIL

Protocol Website:http://biswap.org

Scoring Appendix

The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.

The blockchain used by this protocol
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
10%
1.0%
2.0%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.No
19%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.70%
10.0%
19%
11.40%
12.30%
13.No
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
9%
17.0%
18.70%
0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
Total:12%

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.

Code And Team

10%

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: 0%

No publicly available executing smart contract addresses were found on their website/in any of their documentation.

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: 0%

No executing code addresses are publicly available in Biswap's documentation, and therefore we cannot evaluate the code's usage.

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: 0%

With 13 commits and 1 branch, this is an unhealthy software 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: No

No public team info was found in their documentation or through web searches.

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

19%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

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

Answer: Yes

7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There is no evident software documentation available.

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

Answer: 0%

There is no evident software documentation available.

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: 70%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 70% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code
90 - 70%
CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code
60 - 20%
CtC > 20 Some useful commenting
0%
CtC < 20 No useful commenting

10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evident software documentation available.

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

19%

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

Answer: 40%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 7% 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: 30%

No evidence of code coverage in their GitHub repository or in their Certik audit.

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: No

No scripts or instructions to run tests were found in their GitHub repository.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test report or coverage report in their GitHub repository.

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 Biswap Formal Verification test was found in their documentation/GitHub.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of test-net smart contract address usage was found in any Biswap documentation.

Security

9%

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

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

Answer: 0%

​Certik published a Biswap security assessment on June 9th 2021. Since the contract addresses were not found, the score is 0% because the executing code could be different than the audited code and we can't verify.
Note: Biswap was released at the end of April 2021.
Note 2: All fix recommendations were acknowledged but not implemented.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code.

18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 70%

Bug Bounty program found at https://docs.biswap.org/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
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

0%

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.

19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 0%

No admin access control information was found in any of their documentation.

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

20. Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 0%

No admin access control information was found in any of their documentation, this includes a lack of ownership type, clear labelling, and description of capabilities for change in contracts.

Percentage Score Guidance:
All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 0%

No admin control information was found.

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

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of Pause Control was found in their documentation or in their GitHub repository.

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: [email protected]
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.

null
null
1pragma solidity 0.6.12;
2library SafeBEP20 {
3    using SafeMath for uint256;
4    using Address for address;
56    function safeTransfer(
7        IBEP20 token,
8        address to,
9        uint256 value
10    ) internal {
11        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.transfer.selector, to, value));
12    }
1314    function safeTransferFrom(
15        IBEP20 token,
16        address from,
17        address to,
18        uint256 value
19    ) internal {
20        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.transferFrom.selector, from, to, value));
21    }
2223    /**
24     * @dev Deprecated. This function has issues similar to the ones found in
25     * {IBEP20-approve}, and its usage is discouraged.
26     *
27     * Whenever possible, use {safeIncreaseAllowance} and
28     * {safeDecreaseAllowance} instead.
29     */
30    function safeApprove(
31        IBEP20 token,
32        address spender,
33        uint256 value
34    ) internal {
35        // safeApprove should only be called when setting an initial allowance,
36        // or when resetting it to zero. To increase and decrease it, use
37        // 'safeIncreaseAllowance' and 'safeDecreaseAllowance'
38        // solhint-disable-next-line max-line-length
39        require(
40            (value == 0) || (token.allowance(address(this), spender) == 0),
41            'SafeBEP20: approve from non-zero to non-zero allowance'
42        );
43        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.approve.selector, spender, value));
44    }
4546    function safeIncreaseAllowance(
47        IBEP20 token,
48        address spender,
49        uint256 value
50    ) internal {
51        uint256 newAllowance = token.allowance(address(this), spender).add(value);
52        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.approve.selector, spender, newAllowance));
53    }
5455    function safeDecreaseAllowance(
56        IBEP20 token,
57        address spender,
58        uint256 value
59    ) internal {
60        uint256 newAllowance = token.allowance(address(this), spender).sub(
61            value,
62            'SafeBEP20: decreased allowance below zero'
63        );
64        _callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.approve.selector, spender, newAllowance));
65    }
6667    /**
68     * @dev Imitates a Solidity high-level call (i.e. a regular function call to a contract), relaxing the requirement
69     * on the return value: the return value is optional (but if data is returned, it must not be false).
70     * @param token The token targeted by the call.
71     * @param data The call data (encoded using abi.encode or one of its variants).
72     */
73    function _callOptionalReturn(IBEP20 token, bytes memory data) private {
74        // We need to perform a low level call here, to bypass Solidity's return data size checking mechanism, since
75        // we're implementing it ourselves. We use {Address.functionCall} to perform this call, which verifies that
76        // the target address contains contract code and also asserts for success in the low-level call.
7778        bytes memory returndata = address(token).functionCall(data, 'SafeBEP20: low-level call failed');
79        if (returndata.length > 0) {
80            // Return data is optional
81            // solhint-disable-next-line max-line-length
82            require(abi.decode(returndata, (bool)), 'SafeBEP20: BEP20 operation did not succeed');
83        }
84    }
85}
86import "./BSWToken.sol";
8788interface IMigratorChef {
89    function migrate(IBEP20 token) external returns (IBEP20);
90}
9192// MasterChef is the master of BSW. He can make BSW and he is a fair guy.
93//
94// Note that it's ownable and the owner wields tremendous power. The ownership
95// will be transferred to a governance smart contract once BSW is sufficiently
96// distributed and the community can show to govern itself.
97//
98// Have fun reading it. Hopefully it's bug-free. God bless.
99contract MasterChef is Ownable {
100    using SafeMath for uint256;
101    using SafeBEP20 for IBEP20;
102    // Info of each user.
103    struct UserInfo {
104        uint256 amount; // How many LP tokens the user has provided.
105        uint256 rewardDebt; // Reward debt. See explanation below.
106        //
107        // We do some fancy math here. Basically, any point in time, the amount of BSWs
108        // entitled to a user but is pending to be distributed is:
109        //
110        //   pending reward = (user.amount * pool.accBSWPerShare) - user.rewardDebt
111        //
112        // Whenever a user deposits or withdraws LP tokens to a pool. Here's what happens:
113        //   1. The pool's `accBSWPerShare` (and `lastRewardBlock`) gets updated.
114        //   2. User receives the pending reward sent to his/her address.
115        /   3. User's `amount` gets updated.
116        /   4. User's `rewardDebt` gets updated.
117    }
118    // Info of each pool.
119    struct PoolInfo {
120        IBEP20 lpToken; // Address of LP token contract.
121        uint256 allocPoint; // How many allocation points assigned to this pool. BSWs to distribute per block.
122        uint256 lastRewardBlock; // Last block number that BSWs distribution occurs.
123        uint256 accBSWPerShare; // Accumulated BSWs per share, times 1e12. See below.
124    }
125    // The BSW TOKEN!
126    BSWToken public BSW;
127    //Pools, Farms, Dev, Refs percent decimals
128    uint256 public percentDec = 1000000;
129    //Pools and Farms percent from token per block
130    uint256 public stakingPercent;
131    //Developers percent from token per block
132    uint256 public devPercent;
133    //Referrals percent from token per block
134    uint256 public refPercent;
135    //Safu fund percent from token per block
136    uint256 public safuPercent;
137    // Dev address.
138    address public devaddr;
139    // Safu fund.
140    address public safuaddr;
141    // Refferals commision address.
142    address public refAddr;
143    // Last block then develeper withdraw dev and ref fee
144    uint256 public lastBlockDevWithdraw;
145    // BSW tokens created per block.
146    uint256 public BSWPerBlock;
147    // Bonus muliplier for early BSW makers.
148    uint256 public BONUS_MULTIPLIER = 1;
149    // The migrator contract. It has a lot of power. Can only be set through governance (owner).
150    IMigratorChef public migrator;
151    // Info of each pool.
152    PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
153    // Info of each user that stakes LP tokens.
154    mapping(uint256 => mapping(address => UserInfo)) public userInfo;
155    // Total allocation poitns. Must be the sum of all allocation points in all pools.
156    uint256 public totalAllocPoint = 0;
157    // The block number when BSW mining starts.
158    uint256 public startBlock;
159    // Deposited amount BSW in MasterChef
160    uint256 public depositedBsw;
161

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
9
2865
330
1042
1493
164

Comments to Code: 1042 / 1493 =  70 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
2
303
44
160
99
8

Tests to Code: 99 / 1493 = 7 %