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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Hop

67%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Hop

Final score:67%
Date:21 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:67%

FAIL

Protocol Website:https://hop.exchange/

About the protocol

Hop comes close to our arbitrary passing grade thanks to good process quality. Good documentation (though brief) and a clear team structure alongside great audit practises are the strengths of Hop. However, it should implement a bug bounty as well as explain their testing methodologies a little more clearly. Most critical to improve however is clear information relating to access controls: there is no information about this. All things considered though, they document their development processes relatively robustly.

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
Ethereum
Polygon
Optimism
Gnosis Chain
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
91%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.80%
9.100%
80%
10.100%
11.100%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
87%
16.100%
17.0%
11%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.60%
25.50%
63%
26.100
27.Yes
28.No
Total:67%

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

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%

They can be found at https://github.com/hop-protocol/hop/blob/develop/packages/core/src/addresses/mainnet.ts, as indicated in the Appendix.

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%

Contract Optimism Token Bridge is used 10+ 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

Hop uses GitHub.

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%

At 959 commits, this protocol's commitment to development is evidently a hop to perfection.

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

Two public team members were found on LinkedIn. This is documented in the appendix.

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

91%

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.hop.exchange/

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

Answer: Yes

Hop's software architecture is documented in full in the GitHub repo.

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: 80%

There is some coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation. Individual functions are identified and the analysis is a high-level overview.

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: 100%

There is perfect traceability between software documentation and implemented code.

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

80%

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 1121% 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%. This protocol has a remarkable 10 lines of test code in solidity / typescript for each line of deployed solidity.

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: 100%

There is no test for code coverage documented, though it is clear this protocol has undergone massive testing. Given the 10x code ratio, it is obvious that all lines of code are covered.

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

Test scripts can be found here.

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 test report evident.

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

This protocol has not undergone formal verification.

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

Hop documents its deployment to a testnet by providing these contracts. Users can verify them.

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

87%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

Hop was audited twice before launch.

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 information relating to a bug bounty was found in Hop's documentation.

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

11%

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 was not documented by Hop.

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%

The 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%

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 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%

This information is not present, making evaluation impossible.

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%

This protocol'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: 60%

This protocol has no timelock documentation. A mention of a day-long timelock is nevertheless identified in the GitHub repo at this location.

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: 50%

The timelock is outside of our length requests. In order to reach full marks on this question, a justification on why 24 hours was chosen must be given.

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

63%

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: 100

Hop does not use an oracle because it is a bridge.

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

Since Hop is a bridge, it 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

This protocol documents no flashloan 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

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
2
3pragma solidity 0.6.12;
4pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
5
6import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
7import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
8import "./Bridge.sol";
9import "./L2_Bridge.sol";
10
11/**
12 * @dev L1_Bridge is responsible for the bonding and challenging of TransferRoots. All TransferRoots
13 * originate in the L1_Bridge through `bondTransferRoot` and are propagated up to destination L2s.
14 */
15
16abstract contract L1_Bridge is Bridge {
17    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
18
19    struct TransferBond {
20        address bonder;
21        uint256 createdAt;
22        uint256 totalAmount;
23        uint256 challengeStartTime;
24        address challenger;
25        bool challengeResolved;
26    }
27
28    /* ========== Constants ========== */
29
30    address constant ETH_ADDRESS = 0xEeeeeEeeeEeEeeEeEeEeeEEEeeeeEeeeeeeeEEeE;
31
32    /* ========== State ========== */
33
34    address public immutable token;
35    mapping(uint256 => mapping(bytes32 => uint256)) public transferRootCommittedAt;
36    mapping(bytes32 => TransferBond) public transferBonds;
37    mapping(uint256 => mapping(address => uint256)) public timeSlotToAmountBonded;
38    mapping(uint256 => uint256) public chainBalance;
39
40    /* ========== Config State ========== */
41
42    mapping(uint256 => address) public xDomainConnectors;
43    mapping(uint256 => bool) public isChainIdPaused;
44    uint256 public challengePeriod = 1 days;
45    uint256 public challengeResolutionPeriod = 10 days;
46    uint256 public minTransferRootBondDelay = 15 minutes;
47    
48    uint256 public constant CHALLENGE_AMOUNT_DIVISOR = 10;
49    uint256 public constant TIME_SLOT_SIZE = 4 hours;
50
51    /* ========== Events ========== */
52
53    event TransferSentToL2(
54        uint256 indexed chainId,
55        address indexed recipient,
56        uint256 amount,
57        uint256 tokenIndex,
58        uint256 amountOutMin,
59        uint256 deadline,
60        address indexed relayer,
61        uint256 relayerFee
62    );
63
64    event TransferRootBonded (
65        bytes32 indexed root,
66        uint256 amount,
67        uint256 destinationChainid
68    );
69
70    event TransferRootConfirmed(
71        uint256 indexed originChainId,
72        uint256 indexed destinationChainId,
73        bytes32 indexed rootHash,
74        uint256 totalAmount
75    );
76
77    event TransferBondChallenged(
78        bytes32 indexed transferRootId,
79        bytes32 indexed rootHash,
80        uint256 originalAmount
81    );
82
83    event ChallengeResolved(
84        bytes32 indexed transferRootId,
85        bytes32 indexed rootHash,
86        uint256 originalAmount
87    );
88
89    /* ========== Modifiers ========== */
90
91    modifier onlyL2Bridge(uint256 chainId) {
92        require(msg.sender == xDomainConnectors[chainId], "L1_BRG: Caller must be bridge connector");
93        _;
94    }
95
96    constructor (
97        IBonderRegistry _registry,
98        address _token
99    )
100        public
101        Bridge(_registry)
102    {
103        token = _token;
104    }
105
106    /* ========== Send Functions ========== */
107
108    /**
109     * @notice `swapData` should contain all 0s when no swap is intended at the destination.
110     * @notice `amount` is the total amount the user wants to send including the relayer fee
111     * @dev Send tokens to a supported layer-2 to mint hToken and optionally swap the hToken in the
112     * AMM at the destination.
113     * @param chainId The chainId of the destination chain
114     * @param recipient The address receiving funds at the destination
115     * @param amount The amount being sent
116     * @param swapData The `tokenIndex`, `amountOutMin`, and `deadline` used for swaps
117     * @param relayer The address of the relayer at the destination.
118     * @param relayerFee The amount distributed to the relayer at the destination. This is subtracted from the `amount`.
119     */
120    function sendToL2(
121        uint256 chainId,
122        address recipient,
123        uint256 amount,
124        SwapData calldata swapData,
125        address relayer,
126        uint256 relayerFee
127    )
128        external
129        payable
130    {
131        address xDomainConnector = xDomainConnectors[chainId];
132        require(xDomainConnector != address(0), "L1_BRG: chainId not supported");
133        require(isChainIdPaused[chainId] == false, "L1_BRG: Sends to this chainId are paused");
134        require(amount > 0, "L1_BRG: Must transfer a non-zero amount");
135        require(amount >= relayerFee, "L1_BRG: Relayer fee cannot exceed amount");
136
137        _transferToBridge(msg.sender, amount);
138
139        chainBalance[chainId] = chainBalance[chainId].add(amount);
140
141        uint256 forwardedValue;
142        if (token == ETH_ADDRESS) {
143            forwardedValue = msg.value.sub(amount, "L1_BRG: Value is less than amount");
144        } else {
145            forwardedValue = msg.value;
146        }
147
148        L2_Bridge(xDomainConnector).distribute(
149            recipient,
150            amount,
151            swapData,
152            relayer,
153            relayerFee
154        );
155
156        emit TransferSentToL2(
157            chainId,
158            recipient,
159            amount,
160            swapData.tokenIndex,
161            swapData.amountOutMin,
162            swapData.deadline,
163            relayer,
164            relayerFee
165        );
166    }
167
168    /* ========== TransferRoot Functions ========== */
169
170    /**
171     * @dev Setting a TransferRoot is a two step process.
172     * @dev   1. The TransferRoot is bonded with `bondTransferRoot`. Withdrawals can now begin on L1
173     * @dev      and recipient L2's
174     * @dev   2. The TransferRoot is confirmed after `confirmTransferRoot` is called by the l2 bridge
175     * @dev      where the TransferRoot originated.
176     */
177
178    /**
179     * @dev Used by the Bonder to bond a TransferRoot and propagate it up to destination L2s
180     * @param rootHash The Merkle root of the TransferRoot Merkle tree
181     * @param destinationChainId The id of the destination chain
182     * @param totalAmount The amount destined for the destination chain
183     */
184    function bondTransferRoot(
185        bytes32 rootHash,
186        uint256 destinationChainId,
187        uint256 totalAmount
188    )
189        external
190        onlyBonder
191        requirePositiveBalance
192    {
193        _bondTransferRoot(rootHash, destinationChainId, totalAmount);
194    }
195
196    /**
197     * @dev Convenience function used by the Bonder to bond a TransferRoot and immediately settle it on L1
198     * @param rootHash The Merkle root of the TransferRoot Merkle tree
199     * @param destinationChainId The id of the destination chain
200     * @param transferIds All transferIds in the TransferRoot in order
201     * @param totalAmount The amount destined for the destination chain
202     */
203    function bondTransferRootAndSettle(
204        bytes32 rootHash,
205        uint256 destinationChainId,
206        // transferIds _must_ be calldata or it will be mutated by Lib_MerkleTree.getMerkleRoot
207        bytes32[] calldata transferIds,
208        uint256 totalAmount
209    )
210        external
211        onlyBonder
212        requirePositiveBalance
213    {
214        require(destinationChainId == getChainId(), "L1_BRG: bondTransferRootAndSettle is for L1 only");
215        _bondTransferRoot(rootHash, destinationChainId, totalAmount);
216        settleBondedWithdrawals(msg.sender, transferIds, totalAmount);
217    }
218

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
19
2259
367
500
15611
1392
101

Tests to Code: 15611 / 1392 = 1121 %