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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Grim Finance

24%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Grim Finance

Final score:24%
Date:17 Mar 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:24%

FAIL

Protocol Website:grim.finance

Hack History

Date:21 Dec 2021
Details: On 21 Dec 2021, Grim suffered a rentrancy hack causing preventable loss of 30M a major loss (31% of TVL). This causes a penalty of 30% in place until 21 June 2022. Note: The maximum penalty a protocol can incur is 30%, or otherwise any lower penalty that effectively brings the protocol's score to 0. Negative scores are not within scope.
Reference Linklink

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
Fantom
#QuestionAnswer
56%
1.100%
2.100%
3.No
4.0%
5.0
43%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.0%
9.0%
0%
10.0%
11.0%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.No
39%
16.45%
17.0%
5%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.40%
24.0%
25.0%
13%
26.0%
27.Yes
28.No
Total:24%

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

56%

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 found.

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%

Activity is more than 10 transactions a day on contract 0x18C5C07a9F68c82de678470a9E9306Ffc3e9Ced6 (Grim-0%FTM Vault), 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: No

GitHub: https://github.com/Grim-Finance, but this repo is private.

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%

This repository is private, making this question's prospects suitably grim.

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: 0

The team is private.

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

43%

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

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

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: Yes

Software architecture documentation is evident.

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: 0%

No documentation covers Grim Finance's deployed contracts and their respective software functions.

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: 0%

Grim's GitHub repository is private, making traceability between software docs and source code impossible.

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

0%

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

Answer: 0%

We cannot analyze Grim Finance's test suite because their GitHub repository is private.

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: 0%

With a private GitHub repo, we cannot identify any code coverage of the Grim Finance software.

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: No

No test scripts were found because Grim Finance's GitHub repository is private.

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 Grim Finance test report is evident in any of their documentation.

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 Grim Finance Formal Verification test has been documented.

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: No

No evidence of Grim Finance's deployment to a testnet is documented.

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

39%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 45%

Multiple audits took place post deployment, but since the repository is private 25% is deducted. Indeed, Solidity.finance's first audit took place before the reentrancy exploit that this protocol underwent but did not ensure a reentrancy guard was implemented in the relevant locations.

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%

No bug bounty is offered by the Grim Finance team.

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

5%

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%

Admin Control information could not be found in any of the Grim Finance documentation.

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%

Grim Finance'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%

Grim Finance's 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%

Smart contract change capabilities are not identified in any of Grim Finance's 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%

Grim Finance's Admin Control information is absent entirely.

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: 40%

Grim Finance's pause control is documented but insufficiently explained in this location. There is no evidence of testing. While it details that the vaults will pause if a potential threat is identified, it requires more explanation as to what these threats are.

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%

Grim Finance 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%

Grim Finance 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

13%

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. These questions are explained in this document.

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

Answer: 0%

Grim Finance's oracle source is not documented.

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

Grim Finance cannot be front run.

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

Grim Finance documents flash loan / liquidity attack 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

null
1//// Contract code was found via ftmscan - the repository is private. 
2
3// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/GSN/Context.sol
4
5
6pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
7
8/*
9 * @dev Provides information about the current execution context, including the
10 * sender of the transaction and its data. While these are generally available
11 * via msg.sender and msg.data, they should not be accessed in such a direct
12 * manner, since when dealing with GSN meta-transactions the account sending and
13 * paying for execution may not be the actual sender (as far as an application
14 * is concerned).
15 *
16 * This contract is only required for intermediate, library-like contracts.
17 */
18abstract contract Context {
19    function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address payable) {
20        return msg.sender;
21    }
22
23    function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes memory) {
24        this; // silence state mutability warning without generating bytecode - see https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2691
25        return msg.data;
26    }
27}
28
29// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol
30
31
32pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
33
34/**
35 * @dev Interface of the ERC20 standard as defined in the EIP.
36 */
37interface IERC20 {
38    /**
39     * @dev Returns the amount of tokens in existence.
40     */
41    function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
42
43    /**
44     * @dev Returns the amount of tokens owned by `account`.
45     */
46    function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
47
48    /**
49     * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from the caller's account to `recipient`.
50     *
51     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
52     *
53     * Emits a {Transfer} event.
54     */
55    function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
56
57    /**
58     * @dev Returns the remaining number of tokens that `spender` will be
59     * allowed to spend on behalf of `owner` through {transferFrom}. This is
60     * zero by default.
61     *
62     * This value changes when {approve} or {transferFrom} are called.
63     */
64    function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
65
66    /**
67     * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the caller's tokens.
68     *
69     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
70     *
71     * IMPORTANT: Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk
72     * that someone may use both the old and the new allowance by unfortunate
73     * transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this race
74     * condition is to first reduce the spender's allowance to 0 and set the
75     * desired value afterwards:
76     * https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/20#issuecomment-263524729
77     *
78     * Emits an {Approval} event.
79     */
80    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
81
82    /**
83     * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from `sender` to `recipient` using the
84     * allowance mechanism. `amount` is then deducted from the caller's
85     * allowance.
86     *
87     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
88     *
89     * Emits a {Transfer} event.
90     */
91    function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
92
93    /**
94     * @dev Emitted when `value` tokens are moved from one account (`from`) to
95     * another (`to`).
96     *
97     * Note that `value` may be zero.
98     */
99    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
100
101    /**
102     * @dev Emitted when the allowance of a `spender` for an `owner` is set by
103     * a call to {approve}. `value` is the new allowance.
104     */
105    event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
106}
107
108// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol
109
110
111pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
112
113/**
114 * @dev Wrappers over Solidity's arithmetic operations with added overflow
115 * checks.
116 *
117 * Arithmetic operations in Solidity wrap on overflow. This can easily result
118 * in bugs, because programmers usually assume that an overflow raises an
119 * error, which is the standard behavior in high level programming languages.
120 * `SafeMath` restores this intuition by reverting the transaction when an
121 * operation overflows.
122 *
123 * Using this library instead of the unchecked operations eliminates an entire
124 * class of bugs, so it's recommended to use it always.
125 */
126library SafeMath {
127    /**
128     * @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, reverting on
129     * overflow.
130     *
131     * Counterpart to Solidity's `+` operator.
132     *
133     * Requirements:
134     *
135     * - Addition cannot overflow.
136     */
137    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
138        uint256 c = a + b;
139        require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
140
141        return c;
142    }
143
144    /**
145     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting on
146     * overflow (when the result is negative).
147     *
148     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
149     *
150     * Requirements:
151     *
152     * - Subtraction cannot overflow.
153     */
154    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
155        return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction overflow");
156    }
157
158    /**
159     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting with custom message on
160     * overflow (when the result is negative).
161     *
162     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
163     *
164     * Requirements:
165     *
166     * - Subtraction cannot overflow.
167     */
168    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
169        require(b <= a, errorMessage);
170        uint256 c = a - b;
171
172        return c;
173    }
174
175    /**
176     * @dev Returns the multiplication of two unsigned integers, reverting on
177     * overflow.
178     *
179     * Counterpart to Solidity's `*` operator.
180     *
181     * Requirements:
182     *
183     * - Multiplication cannot overflow.
184     */
185    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
186        // Gas optimization: this is cheaper than requiring 'a' not being zero, but the
187        // benefit is lost if 'b' is also tested.
188        // See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/522
189        if (a == 0) {
190            return 0;
191        }
192
193        uint256 c = a * b;
194        require(c / a == b, "SafeMath: multiplication overflow");
195
196        return c;
197    }
198
199    /**
200     * @dev Returns the integer division of two unsigned integers. Reverts on
201     * division by zero. The result is rounded towards zero.
202     *
203     * Counterpart to Solidity's `/` operator. Note: this function uses a
204     * `revert` opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity
205     * uses an invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
206     *
207     * Requirements:
208     *
209     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
210     */
211    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
212        return div(a, b, "SafeMath: division by zero");
213    }
N/A