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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Port Finance

56%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Port Finance

Final score:56%
Date:23 Jun 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:56%

FAIL

Protocol Website:port.finance

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
Solana
#QuestionAnswer
40%
1.30%
2.40%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.0
43%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.0%
9.0%
72%
10.80%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
90%
16.90%
17.90%
42%
18.100%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.100%
23.0%
24.30%
25.50%
25%
26.50%
27.No
28.No
Total:56%

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

40%

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: 30%

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.

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: 40%

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.

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

Port's public software repository can be found here.

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%

Port's Sundial repository has 55 commits and 18 branches. Due to its 18 branches, the protocol will earn 100%.

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

Port Finance's team is governed under anons; there cannot be any points awarded for this question.

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

The protocol's software architecture is briefly explained through diagrams and written explanations in the litepaper on page 8.

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%

There is no smart contract documentation, therefore the protocol cannot earn any points.

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%

There is no smart contract documentation, therefore the protocol cannot earn any points for traceability.

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

72%

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

Answer: 80%

Test to code testing indicates 103% TtC. See the appendix for examples and proof.

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: 50%

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.

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

Tests are provided in the readme.md

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: 100%

Port details a test report for users to verify in their CLI.

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

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.

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

90%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 90%

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.

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: 90%

Port's bug bounty is active on Immunefi as $500k, which earns it 90%.

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

42%

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: 100%

The Governance section is easy to access and quick to find.

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%

Smart contracts are not explicitly labelled as upgradeable or immutable.

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 mentioned explicitly within Port's documentation.

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%

Port's smart contract change capabilities are not described.

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: 100%

The information provided for admin control is in non software language, which is good.

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%

There is no Pause Control documentation available in the protocol's documentation.

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: 30%

There is the presence of a timelock within the Governance section, but no appropriate documentation is available on the feature. The protocol earns 30%.

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 delay is 24 hours long, which earns the protocol 50%

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

25%

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: 50%

Pyth Oracle is being mentioned as their main oracle in their Risks & Parameters documentation.

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: No

There is no mention of front running mitigation techniques by the protocol.

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

There is no mention of flash loan attack mitigation techniques by the protocol.

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
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}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Rust
22
3050
367
91
2689
2592
83

Tests to Code: 2689 / 2592 = 104 %