If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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? (%)
Port finance's smart contracts cannot be found. While its governance contracts can be found here, the incompleteness of smart contract addresses available earns Port a 30%. A screenshot of the addresses can be found in the appendix. The Sundial's deployment contracts can be found here but there is no way to look into the smart contract addresses as the code file is raw and cannot be interpreted with a standard IDE.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Within the available contracts, only the electorate contract has been active for more than 10 transactions a month, but not more than 10 a week. A screenshot of the solscan transactions can be found in the appendix.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Port's public software repository can be found here.
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
Port's Sundial repository has 55 commits and 18 branches. Due to its 18 branches, the protocol will earn 100%.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Port Finance's team is governed under anons; there cannot be any points awarded for this question.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
The protocol's software architecture is briefly explained through diagrams and written explanations in the litepaper on page 8.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is no smart contract documentation, therefore the protocol cannot earn any points.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is no smart contract documentation, therefore the protocol cannot earn any points for traceability.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Test to code testing indicates 103% TtC. See the appendix for examples and proof.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
There is no evidence of code coverage for Port Finance. However, with a relatively high Test to code ratio, we can say that some robust testing has gone on in their development.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Tests are provided in the readme.md
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
Port details a test report for users to verify in their CLI.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
This protocol has not undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
While there is a Medium article documenting testnet usage, Port has not provided any smart contract addresses from testnet deployments. Nonetheless, we'll award points here.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are claims in Port's documentation of it being audited by reputable auditing firms. Port has made public audits by Kudelski security and Bramah Systems in their documentation. The issues identified are mitigated and one audit was conducted post-launch with the Bramah Systems audit being conducted before launch.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
Port's bug bounty is active on Immunefi as $500k, which earns it 90%.
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?
The Governance section is easy to access and quick to find.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
Smart contracts are not explicitly labelled as upgradeable or immutable.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Ownership is not mentioned explicitly within Port's documentation.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Port's smart contract change capabilities are not described.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
The information provided for admin control is in non software language, which is good.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
There is no Pause Control documentation available in the protocol's documentation.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
There is the presence of a timelock within the Governance section, but no appropriate documentation is available on the feature. The protocol earns 30%.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
The timelock delay is 24 hours long, which earns the protocol 50%
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? (%)
Pyth Oracle is being mentioned as their main oracle in their Risks & Parameters documentation.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
There is no mention of front running mitigation techniques by the protocol.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
There is no mention of flash loan attack mitigation techniques by the protocol.
1use super::*;
2use arrayref::{array_mut_ref, array_ref, array_refs, mut_array_refs};
3use solana_program::{
4 msg,
5 program_error::ProgramError,
6 program_pack::{IsInitialized, Pack, Sealed},
7 pubkey::{Pubkey, PUBKEY_BYTES},
8};
9
10/// Lending market state
11#[derive(Clone, Debug, Default, PartialEq)]
12pub struct LendingMarket {
13 /// Version of lending market
14 pub version: u8,
15 /// Bump seed for derived authority address
16 pub bump_seed: u8,
17 /// Owner authority which can add new reserves
18 pub owner: Pubkey,
19 /// Currency market prices are quoted in
20 /// e.g. "USD" null padded (`*b"USD\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"`) or a SPL token mint pubkey
21 pub quote_currency: [u8; 32],
22 /// Token program id
23 pub token_program_id: Pubkey,
24}
25
26impl LendingMarket {
27 /// Create a new lending market
28 pub fn new(params: InitLendingMarketParams) -> Self {
29 let mut lending_market = Self::default();
30 Self::init(&mut lending_market, params);
31 lending_market
32 }
33
34 /// Initialize a lending market
35 pub fn init(&mut self, params: InitLendingMarketParams) {
36 self.version = PROGRAM_VERSION;
37 self.bump_seed = params.bump_seed;
38 self.owner = params.owner;
39 self.quote_currency = params.quote_currency;
40 self.token_program_id = params.token_program_id;
41 }
42}
43
44/// Initialize a lending market
45pub struct InitLendingMarketParams {
46 /// Bump seed for derived authority address
47 pub bump_seed: u8,
48 /// Owner authority which can add new reserves
49 pub owner: Pubkey,
50 /// Currency market prices are quoted in
51 /// e.g. "USD" null padded (`*b"USD\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"`) or a SPL token mint pubkey
52 pub quote_currency: [u8; 32],
53 /// Token program id
54 pub token_program_id: Pubkey,
55}
56
57impl Sealed for LendingMarket {}
58impl IsInitialized for LendingMarket {
59 fn is_initialized(&self) -> bool {
60 self.version != UNINITIALIZED_VERSION
61 }
62}
63
64const LENDING_MARKET_LEN: usize = 258; // 1 + 1 + 32 + 32 + 32 + 160
65impl Pack for LendingMarket {
66 const LEN: usize = LENDING_MARKET_LEN;
67
68 fn pack_into_slice(&self, output: &mut [u8]) {
69 let output = array_mut_ref![output, 0, LENDING_MARKET_LEN];
70 #[allow(clippy::ptr_offset_with_cast)]
71 let (version, bump_seed, owner, quote_currency, token_program_id, _padding) =
72 mut_array_refs![output, 1, 1, PUBKEY_BYTES, 32, PUBKEY_BYTES, 160];
73
74 *version = self.version.to_le_bytes();
75 *bump_seed = self.bump_seed.to_le_bytes();
76 owner.copy_from_slice(self.owner.as_ref());
77 quote_currency.copy_from_slice(self.quote_currency.as_ref());
78 token_program_id.copy_from_slice(self.token_program_id.as_ref());
79 }
80
81 /// Unpacks a byte buffer into a [LendingMarketInfo](struct.LendingMarketInfo.html)
82 fn unpack_from_slice(input: &[u8]) -> Result<Self, ProgramError> {
83 let input = array_ref![input, 0, LENDING_MARKET_LEN];
84 #[allow(clippy::ptr_offset_with_cast)]
85 let (version, bump_seed, owner, quote_currency, token_program_id, _padding) =
86 array_refs![input, 1, 1, PUBKEY_BYTES, 32, PUBKEY_BYTES, 160];
87
88 let version = u8::from_le_bytes(*version);
89 if version > PROGRAM_VERSION {
90 msg!("Lending market version does not match lending program version");
91 return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
92 }
93
94 Ok(Self {
95 version,
96 bump_seed: u8::from_le_bytes(*bump_seed),
97 owner: Pubkey::new_from_array(*owner),
98 quote_currency: *quote_currency,
99 token_program_id: Pubkey::new_from_array(*token_program_id),
100 })
101 }
102}
Tests to Code: 2689 / 2592 = 104 %