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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

ApolloX

21%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

ApolloX

Final score:21%
Date:09 Nov 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:David J. Desjardins
PQR Score:21%

FAIL

About the protocol

Please note that ApolloX is a CEX-DEX hybrid, where the CEX component brings in risks that will not be considered in this report, as our process is tailored for decentralised protocols.

Hack History

Date:09 Jun 2022
Details: The stolen tokens were worth $2.1M at the time, representing 13.05% of their $16.09M TVL at the time. The article claims that user funds were not affected... but lost tokens will be repaid for from APX earned from exchange trading fees and an emergency repurchase of $600K. This was a minor hack by TVL. Since no user funds were at risk, we will penalise as if ApolloX repaid their users. They will have their score docked by 10%. This hack appears to still be being investigated. It is unclear the specifics as to how their trading fees will cover the lost funds.
Reference Linklink

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
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
67%
1.50%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.100
47%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.10%
9.0%
0%
10.0%
11.0%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.No
26%
16.30%
17.0%
0%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.0%
25.0%
0%
26.0%
27.No
28.No
Total:21%

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

67%

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: 50%

They can be found at https://apollox-finance.gitbook.io/apollox-finance/apx-token/apx-contract, as indicated in the Appendix. However, these contract addresses are only for the BnB deployments, with nothing for their Ethereum deployment. The lack of addresses for mainnet addresses motivate the halving of this score.

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 ApolloX Exchange Treasury Contract is used over 100 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

ApolloX's repository is located here. However, we definitely recommend adding a link to the repository on their main page, as I found this by looking at the API docs.

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: 0%

There are 2 commits and 1 branch. This code was certainly not developed in this repository, this is simply used as a means to store and showcase the contracts.

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

The team can be found here on LinkedIn. However, they do not seem to have any developers as employees. Their only developer employee is pseudonymous, going by the name of Neptune. This is confusing and indicative of something greater.

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

47%

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://apollox-finance.gitbook.io/apollox-finance/

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented here. Although this gets full points, smart contract architecture diagrams require far more granularity that 2 arrows pointing into "smart contracts" and one going out to "decentralized wallet". There's 10 contracts per chain, and it would be nice to see how the contracts interact with one-another.

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: 10%

There is no software documentation for smart contracts, but their API is very well documented here.

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 software documentation.

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

0%

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

Answer: 0%

ApolloX does not have any public testing files.

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: 0%

ApolloX provides no coverage report. Indeed, there is no proof of contract testing whatsoever.

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: No

ApolloX does not provide scripts or instructions to run their (absent) tests. Their repository is completely dead.

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 testing, even less a report of one.

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: No

There is no evidence of a testnet deployment. They appear to be using Ganache which creates a local fork of a network in order to run tests. However, without any proof of this we will not award points.

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

26%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 30%

ApolloX was audited by Certik on January 27th 2022. This is confusing: their repository has not been updated since December of last year.    As such, their deployed code is not the same is the code in their repository. We cannot identify that the contract that suffered an exploit was audited as a consequence of it being outside their public github repository.    This audit returned one major severity issue and two minor severity issues. The major issue was partially resolved, and the minor ones were acknowledged.    It appears that only the BNB Chain deployment was audited by CertiK, but the contracts have been deployed to Ethereum Mainnet also. This indicates poor due diligence because an audit that considers the strengths and weaknesses of one chain will not consider the strengths and weaknesses of another.    We will thus score as if the audit indicates poor due diligence. It does.

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%

This protocol does not offer a bug bounty for software bugs.

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

0%

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 is not documented, but ApolloX claims they will transition to a DAO governance model in 2022. The current status of admin controls is not identified.    Nonetheless, we found ownership contracts in their repository which are undocumented.

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 upgradeability/immutability of contracts is not identified.

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 for any contract is not indicated. An ownable.sol is indicated in their repository, This means that the contracts are owned by one entity.    This is not documented anywhere.

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.

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%

There is no admin control information, meaning no points can be awarded for ease of understanding.

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 evidence of pause control use by this protocol. However, they state they use a pause function on a withdrawal contract when they detected their recent hack. Documentation would clear this confusion.

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: 0%

There is no information pertaining to timelocks.

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: 0%

There is no information pertaining to timelocks.

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

0%

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: 0%

There is no oracle documentation, and there really should be. Protocols like ApolloX rely heavily on price feeds and there should be a high degree of transparency and risk-management when it comes to the integrity of these price feeds, especially considering ApolloX offers up to 150x leveraged positions. This is critical yet absent.

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

We cannot identify whether front running is mitigated, however even if there is, it is not documented. More transparency about how price feeds are handled could potentially aid in documenting front running mitigation techniques. As a derivatives protocol, this information must be included.

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 evidence or documentation of mitigation of price manipulation through flashloan attacks.

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

1pragma solidity ^0.5.16;
2
3import "./Ownable.sol";
4import "./ApolloxSafeMath.sol";
5import "./IERC20.sol";
6import "./SafeERC20.sol";
7import "./ECDSA.sol";
8
9pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
10
11contract ApolloxExchangeTreasury is Ownable {
12    using ApolloxSafeMath for uint;
13    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
14
15    event ReceiveEther(uint amount);
16    event Claimed(uint256 indexed id, address indexed to, bool isETH, address currency, uint256 amount, uint256 deadline);
17    event TransferToCounterParty(bool isETH, address currency, uint256 amount);
18    event Paused();
19    event Unpaused();
20    event NewTruthHolder(address oldTruthHolder, address newTruthHolder);
21    event NewOperator(address oldOperator, address newOperator);
22    event NewCounterParty(address oldCounterParty, address newCounterParty);
23    event AddCurrency(address indexed currency);
24    event RemoveCurrency(address indexed currency);
25
26    bool public paused;
27    address public truthHolder;
28    address public operator;
29    address payable public counterParty;
30    mapping(address => bool) public supportCurrency;
31    mapping(uint => uint) public claimHistory;
32
33    modifier notPaused() {
34        require(!paused, "paused");
35        _;
36    }
37
38    modifier onlyOperator() {
39        require(msg.sender == operator, "only operator can call");
40        _;
41    }
42
43    constructor (address truthHolder_, address operator_, address payable counterParty_) public {
44        paused = false;
45        truthHolder = truthHolder_;
46        operator = operator_;
47        counterParty = counterParty_;
48    }
49
50    function() external payable {
51        if (msg.value > 0) {
52            emit ReceiveEther(msg.value);
53        }
54    }
55
56    function _transfer(address payable to, bool isETH, address currency, uint amount) internal {
57        if(isETH) {
58            require(address(this).balance >= amount, "not enough ether balance");
59            require(to.send(amount), "ether transfer failed");
60        } else {
61            IERC20 token = IERC20(currency);
62            uint balance = token.balanceOf(address(this));
63            require(balance >= amount, "not enough currency balance");
64            token.safeTransfer(to, amount);
65        }
66    }
67
68    function transferToCounterParty(bool isETH, address currency, uint amount) external onlyOperator {
69        _transfer(counterParty, isETH, currency, amount);
70        emit TransferToCounterParty(isETH, currency, amount);
71    }
72
73    function claim(bytes calldata message, bytes calldata signature) external notPaused {
74        address source = source(message, signature);
75        require(source == truthHolder, "only accept truthHolder signed message");
76
77        (uint256 id, address payable to, bool isETH, address currency, uint256 amount, uint256 deadline) = abi.decode(message, (uint256, address, bool, address, uint256, uint256));
78        require(claimHistory[id] == 0, "already claimed");
79        require(isETH || supportCurrency[currency], "currency not support");
80        require(block.timestamp < deadline, "already passed deadline");
81
82        claimHistory[id] = block.number;
83        _transfer(to, isETH, currency, amount);
84        emit Claimed(id, to, isETH, currency, amount, deadline);
85    }
86
87    function source(bytes memory message, bytes memory signature) public pure returns (address) {
88        bytes32 hash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked("\x19Ethereum Signed Message:\n32", keccak256(message)));
89        return ECDSA.recover(hash, signature);
90    }
91
92    function _pause() external onlyOwner {
93        paused = true;
94        emit Paused();
95    }
96
97    function _unpause() external onlyOwner {
98        paused = false;
99        emit Unpaused();
100    }
101
102    function _changeTruthHolder(address newTruthHolder) external onlyOwner {
103        address oldHolder = truthHolder;
104        truthHolder = newTruthHolder;
105        emit NewTruthHolder(oldHolder, newTruthHolder);
106    }
107
108    function _setOperator(address newOperator) external onlyOwner {
109        address oldOperator = operator;
110        operator = newOperator;
111        emit NewOperator(oldOperator, newOperator);
112    }
113
114    function _setCounterParty(address payable newCounterParty) external onlyOwner {
115        address payable oldCounterParty = counterParty;
116        counterParty = newCounterParty;
117        emit NewCounterParty(oldCounterParty, newCounterParty);
118    }
119
120    function _addCurrency(address currency) external onlyOwner {
121        supportCurrency[currency] = true;
122        emit AddCurrency(currency);
123    }
124
125    function _removeCurrency(address currency) external onlyOwner {
126        delete supportCurrency[currency];
127        emit RemoveCurrency(currency);
128    }
129
N/A