If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
PASS
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 2021. 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? (%)
They can be found at https://docs.bancor.network/developer-guides/contracts, as indicated in the Appendix.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Contract BNT Pool is used more than 10 times a day, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Location: https://github.com/bancorprotocol/
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
At 3917 commits, there's a veritable bank (or) of development history for users to view.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Multiple public team members can be found in the repository or on their twitter page.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://docs.bancor.network/about-bancor-network/bancor-v3
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
This protocol's software architecture is documented in good detail here. A diagram would further help users understand how contracts interact with one another.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is complete traceability between software documentation and implemented code. Users can follow documentation to code easily.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 409% 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 reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
Bancor documents 99% code coverage.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/bancorprotocol/contracts-v3#deployment-tests
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
Test reports are documented in their repository's CI section.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
This protocol has not documented formal verification testing for their V3.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
This protocol has been deployed to a testnet. This was done in the form of a Beta program.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
Bancor's V3 has undergone one pre-launch audit. A second audit by OpenZeppelin has been recently made public. Despite the second audit being shortly post-release, we will award full points because the code was submitted in advance of release and no critical bugs were identified pre-release. In addition, the contracts have not been updated since the code was submitted for audit - the production version of the contracts remains the same. Normally we penalise protocols that get an audit say 9 months after launch. Certora and Chain Security security reviews are also scheduled.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $1M. This bug bounty is specific to smart contracts.
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?
Bancor's admin control information is quick to find.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
Each and every contract is upgradeable, and this is stated in their user documentation.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Ownership is clearly detailed in the hands of Bancor DAO's multisig / voting processes.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract changes are clearly explained. All Bancor contracts are fully upgradeable as per Bancor DAO decisions.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is in simple language for users to comprehend.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
Bancor has good pause control documentation in their documentation Clear information relating to capacities, conditions and more are detailed.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
Bancor does not use a timelock, and this is explained in this location. . There is a (minimum) 5 day proposal, discussion and voting period but once this is completed changes are effected immediately.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
Bancor does not use a timelock, and this is explained in this location. . There is a (minimum) 5 day proposal, discussion and voting period but once this is completed changes are effected immediately.
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? (%)
Bancor does not use an oracle, and this is stated in their documentation.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
Bancor has a 7 day withdraw cooldown period that prevents sandwich attacks being inflicted upon users.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Due to a 7 day cooldown on liquidity withdrawals, Bancor is not susceptible to flashloan attack.
1// SPDX-License-Identifier: SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
2pragma solidity 0.8.13;
3
4import { Address } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Address.sol";
5import { IERC20 } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
6import { SafeERC20 } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
7import { ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable } from "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/security/ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable.sol";
8import { PausableUpgradeable } from "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/security/PausableUpgradeable.sol";
9
10import { ITokenGovernance } from "@bancor/token-governance/contracts/ITokenGovernance.sol";
11
12import { IVault, ROLE_ASSET_MANAGER } from "./interfaces/IVault.sol";
13import { Upgradeable } from "../utility/Upgradeable.sol";
14import { IERC20Burnable } from "../token/interfaces/IERC20Burnable.sol";
15import { Token } from "../token/Token.sol";
16import { TokenLibrary } from "../token/TokenLibrary.sol";
17
18import { Utils, AccessDenied, NotPayable, InvalidToken } from "../utility/Utils.sol";
19
20abstract contract Vault is IVault, Upgradeable, PausableUpgradeable, ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, Utils {
21 using Address for address payable;
22 using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
23 using TokenLibrary for Token;
24
25 // the address of the BNT token
26 IERC20 internal immutable _bnt;
27
28 // the address of the BNT token governance
29 ITokenGovernance internal immutable _bntGovernance;
30
31 // the address of the VBNT token
32 IERC20 internal immutable _vbnt;
33
34 // the address of the VBNT token governance
35 ITokenGovernance internal immutable _vbntGovernance;
36
37 // solhint-disable func-name-mixedcase
38
39 /**
40 * @dev a "virtual" constructor that is only used to set immutable state variables
41 */
42 constructor(ITokenGovernance initBNTGovernance, ITokenGovernance initVBNTGovernance)
43 validAddress(address(initBNTGovernance))
44 validAddress(address(initVBNTGovernance))
45 {
46 _bntGovernance = initBNTGovernance;
47 _bnt = initBNTGovernance.token();
48 _vbntGovernance = initVBNTGovernance;
49 _vbnt = initVBNTGovernance.token();
50 }
51
52 /**
53 * @dev initializes the contract and its parents
54 */
55 function __Vault_init() internal onlyInitializing {
56 __Upgradeable_init();
57 __Pausable_init();
58 __ReentrancyGuard_init();
59
60 __Vault_init_unchained();
61 }
62
63 /**
64 * @dev performs contract-specific initialization
65 */
66 function __Vault_init_unchained() internal onlyInitializing {}
67
68 // solhint-enable func-name-mixedcase
69
70 /**
71 * @dev returns the asset manager role
72 */
73 function roleAssetManager() external pure returns (bytes32) {
74 return ROLE_ASSET_MANAGER;
75 }
76
77 // allows execution only by an authorized operation
78 modifier whenAuthorized(
79 address caller,
80 Token token,
81 address payable target,
82 uint256 amount
83 ) {
84 if (!isAuthorizedWithdrawal(caller, token, target, amount)) {
85 revert AccessDenied();
86 }
87
88 _;
89 }
90
91 /**
92 * @dev returns whether withdrawals are currently paused
93 */
94 function isPaused() external view returns (bool) {
95 return paused();
96 }
97
98 /**
99 * @dev pauses withdrawals
100 *
101 * requirements:
102 *
103 * - the caller must have the ROLE_ADMIN privileges
104 */
105 function pause() external onlyAdmin {
106 _pause();
107 }
108
109 /**
110 * @dev unpauses withdrawals
111 *
112 * requirements:
113 *
114 * - the caller must have the ROLE_ADMIN privileges
115 */
116 function unpause() external onlyAdmin {
117 _unpause();
118 }
119
120 /**
121 * @inheritdoc IVault
122 */
123 function withdrawFunds(
124 Token token,
125 address payable target,
126 uint256 amount
127 )
128 external
129 override
130 validAddress(target)
131 nonReentrant
132 whenNotPaused
133 whenAuthorized(msg.sender, token, target, amount)
134 {
135 if (amount == 0) {
136 return;
137 }
138
139 if (token.isNative()) {
140 // using a regular transfer here would revert due to exceeding the 2300 gas limit which is why we're using
141 // call instead (via sendValue), which the 2300 gas limit does not apply for
142 target.sendValue(amount);
143 } else {
144 token.safeTransfer(target, amount);
145 }
146
147 emit FundsWithdrawn({ token: token, caller: msg.sender, target: target, amount: amount });
148 }
149
150 /**
151 * @inheritdoc IVault
152 */
153 function burn(Token token, uint256 amount)
154 external
155 nonReentrant
156 whenNotPaused
157 whenAuthorized(msg.sender, token, payable(address(0)), amount)
158 {
159 if (amount == 0) {
160 return;
161 }
162
163 if (token.isNative()) {
164 revert InvalidToken();
165 }
166
167 // allow vaults to burn BNT and VBNT via their respective token governance modules
168 if (token.isEqual(_bnt)) {
169 _bntGovernance.burn(amount);
170 } else if (token.isEqual(_vbnt)) {
171 _vbntGovernance.burn(amount);
172 } else {
173 IERC20Burnable(address(token)).burn(amount);
174 }
175
176 emit FundsBurned({ token: token, caller: msg.sender, amount: amount });
177 }
178
179 /**
180 * @dev returns whether the given caller is allowed access to the given token
181 */
182 function isAuthorizedWithdrawal(
183 address caller,
184 Token token,
185 address target,
186 uint256 amount
187 ) internal view virtual returns (bool);
188
189 /**
190 * @inheritdoc IVault
191 */
192 function isPayable() public view virtual returns (bool);
193
194 /**
195 * @dev authorize the contract to receive the native token
196 *
197 * requirements:
198 *
199 * - isPayable must return true
200 */
201 receive() external payable {
202 if (!isPayable()) {
203 revert NotPayable();
204 }
205 }
206}
Tests to Code: 19305 / 4718 = 409 %