If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
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.
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.
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.
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? (%)
Contracts are easily found.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Activity is more than 10 transactions a day on contract 0x18C5C07a9F68c82de678470a9E9306Ffc3e9Ced6 (Grim-0%FTM Vault), as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
GitHub: https://github.com/Grim-Finance, but this repo is private.
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
This repository is private, making this question's prospects suitably grim.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
The team is private.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
Software architecture documentation is evident.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
No documentation covers Grim Finance's deployed contracts and their respective software functions.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
Grim's GitHub repository is private, making traceability between software docs and source code impossible.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
We cannot analyze Grim Finance's test suite because their GitHub repository is private.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
With a private GitHub repo, we cannot identify any code coverage of the Grim Finance software.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
No test scripts were found because Grim Finance's GitHub repository is private.
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No Grim Finance test report is evident in any of their documentation.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No Grim Finance Formal Verification test has been documented.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
No evidence of Grim Finance's deployment to a testnet is documented.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
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.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
No bug bounty is offered by the Grim Finance team.
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?
Admin Control information could not be found in any of the Grim Finance documentation.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
Grim Finance's relevant contracts are not identified as immutable / upgradeable.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Grim Finance's contract ownership is not clearly indicated.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract change capabilities are not identified in any of Grim Finance's contracts.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
Grim Finance's Admin Control information is absent entirely.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
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.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
Grim Finance has no timelock documentation.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
Grim Finance has no timelock documentation.
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? (%)
Grim Finance's oracle source is not documented.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
Grim Finance cannot be front run.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Grim Finance documents flash loan / liquidity attack countermeasures.
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 }