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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

1inch

84%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.8)

1inch

Final score:84%
Date:17 Jun 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:84%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://1inch.io/

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
Arbitrum
Avalanche
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Fantom
Polygon
Optimism
Gnosis Chain
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
75%
10.100%
11.77%
12.No
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
87%
16.100%
17.0%
65%
18.100%
19.0%
20.100%
21.50%
22.90%
23.0%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:84%

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/1inch/limit-order-protocol#deployments--audits, 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 LimitOrder (MATIC) 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

https://github.com/1inch

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%

Their limit-order protocol has 433 commits, making this development history anything but limited.

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

Where we found the team is documented in our team appendix at the end of this report. Many of 1inch's team are public and confirm their contributions to the network.

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

94%

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.1inch.io/docs/1inch-network-overview

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in words in their documentation.

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: 100%

There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation.

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: 60%

There is non-explicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code. There is strong association nonetheless and would be improved by links to exact locations in their GitHub repository.

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

75%

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 176% 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.

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: 77%

1inch document a code coverage of 77%

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

No scripts for testing are provided in their repositories.

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%

Test reports can be found in the CLI: https://github.com/1inch/liquidity-protocol/actions/runs/1871633909

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

This protocol has not been deployed to a testnet. However, they've deployed them to a private testnet and provide instructions for users on how to do so in that link.

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%

1inch's different iterations have all undergone audits. Each time, these were conducted before the code was deployed.

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%

1inch does not offer a bug bounty. This was discussed for a short while, but it appears nothing has come from it. There appears to be infrastructure for this, but there is no clear monetary incentive documented for those disclosing 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

65%

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%

Admin control information was clearly documented at this location. This was 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%

No contracts are clearly explained as being immutable or ownable in their documentation. This is indicated in code documentation, but this requires clarification.

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: 100%

Ownership is clearly indicated in this location.

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: 50%

Smart contract change capabilities are identified in some but not all contracts. This could use further clarification.

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: 90%

This information is not in software specific language - anyone can understand it.

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: 100%

This protocol has clear timelock documentation which can be found 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: 100%

The timelock is of a relevant length, as specified in this location.

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

100%

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

The protocol's oracle source is documented. All contracts are identified as in scope, and there is software function documentation relating to it.

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

This protocol documents good front running mitigation techniques at this location. However, 1inch pockets slippage differences, as identified here - users should be aware of this.

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: Yes

This protocol documents no flashloan countermeasures. However, since this protocol does not custody funds and uses chainlink, it is not susceptible to flashloan attack.

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/access/Ownable.sol";
7import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
8import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Pausable.sol";
9import "./interfaces/IChi.sol";
10import "./interfaces/IERC20Permit.sol";
11import "./interfaces/IOneInchCaller.sol";
12import "./helpers/RevertReasonParser.sol";
13import "./helpers/UniERC20.sol";
14
15
16contract OneInchExchange is Ownable, Pausable {
17    using SafeMath for uint256;
18    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
19    using UniERC20 for IERC20;
20
21    uint256 private constant _PARTIAL_FILL = 0x01;
22    uint256 private constant _REQUIRES_EXTRA_ETH = 0x02;
23    uint256 private constant _SHOULD_CLAIM = 0x04;
24    uint256 private constant _BURN_FROM_MSG_SENDER = 0x08;
25    uint256 private constant _BURN_FROM_TX_ORIGIN = 0x10;
26
27    struct SwapDescription {
28        IERC20 srcToken;
29        IERC20 dstToken;
30        address srcReceiver;
31        address dstReceiver;
32        uint256 amount;
33        uint256 minReturnAmount;
34        uint256 guaranteedAmount;
35        uint256 flags;
36        address referrer;
37        bytes permit;
38    }
39
40    event Swapped(
41        address indexed sender,
42        IERC20 indexed srcToken,
43        IERC20 indexed dstToken,
44        address dstReceiver,
45        uint256 amount,
46        uint256 spentAmount,
47        uint256 returnAmount,
48        uint256 minReturnAmount,
49        uint256 guaranteedAmount,
50        address referrer
51    );
52
53    event Error(
54        string reason
55    );
56
57    function discountedSwap(
58        IOneInchCaller caller,
59        SwapDescription calldata desc,
60        IOneInchCaller.CallDescription[] calldata calls
61    )
62        external
63        payable
64        returns (uint256 returnAmount)
65    {
66        uint256 initialGas = gasleft();
67
68        address chiSource = address(0);
69        if (desc.flags & _BURN_FROM_MSG_SENDER != 0) {
70            chiSource = msg.sender;
71        } else if (desc.flags & _BURN_FROM_TX_ORIGIN != 0) {
72            chiSource = tx.origin; // solhint-disable-line avoid-tx-origin
73        } else {
74            revert("Incorrect CHI burn flags");
75        }
76
77        // solhint-disable-next-line avoid-low-level-calls
78        (bool success, bytes memory data) = address(this).delegatecall(abi.encodeWithSelector(this.swap.selector, caller, desc, calls));
79        if (success) {
80            returnAmount = abi.decode(data, (uint256));
81        } else {
82            if (msg.value > 0) {
83                msg.sender.transfer(msg.value);
84            }
85            emit Error(RevertReasonParser.parse(data, "Swap failed: "));
86        }
87
88        (IChi chi, uint256 amount) = caller.calculateGas(initialGas.sub(gasleft()), desc.flags, msg.data.length);
89        chi.freeFromUpTo(chiSource, amount);
90    }
91
92    function swap(
93        IOneInchCaller caller,
94        SwapDescription calldata desc,
95        IOneInchCaller.CallDescription[] calldata calls
96    )
97        external
98        payable
99        whenNotPaused
100        returns (uint256 returnAmount)
101    {
102        require(desc.minReturnAmount > 0, "Min return should not be 0");
103        require(calls.length > 0, "Call data should exist");
104
105        uint256 flags = desc.flags;
106        IERC20 srcToken = desc.srcToken;
107        IERC20 dstToken = desc.dstToken;
108
109        if (flags & _REQUIRES_EXTRA_ETH != 0) {
110            require(msg.value > (srcToken.isETH() ? desc.amount : 0), "Invalid msg.value");
111        } else {
112            require(msg.value == (srcToken.isETH() ? desc.amount : 0), "Invalid msg.value");
113        }
114
115        if (flags & _SHOULD_CLAIM != 0) {
116            require(!srcToken.isETH(), "Claim token is ETH");
117            _claim(srcToken, desc.srcReceiver, desc.amount, desc.permit);
118        }
119
120        address dstReceiver = (desc.dstReceiver == address(0)) ? msg.sender : desc.dstReceiver;
121        uint256 initialSrcBalance = (flags & _PARTIAL_FILL != 0) ? srcToken.uniBalanceOf(msg.sender) : 0;
122        uint256 initialDstBalance = dstToken.uniBalanceOf(dstReceiver);
123
124        caller.makeCalls{value: msg.value}(calls);
125
126        uint256 spentAmount = desc.amount;
127        returnAmount = dstToken.uniBalanceOf(dstReceiver).sub(initialDstBalance);
128
129        if (flags & _PARTIAL_FILL != 0) {
130            spentAmount = initialSrcBalance.add(desc.amount).sub(srcToken.uniBalanceOf(msg.sender));
131            require(returnAmount.mul(desc.amount) >= desc.minReturnAmount.mul(spentAmount), "Return amount is not enough");
132        } else {
133            require(returnAmount >= desc.minReturnAmount, "Return amount is not enough");
134        }
135
136        _emitSwapped(desc, srcToken, dstToken, dstReceiver, spentAmount, returnAmount);
137    }
138
139    function _emitSwapped(
140        SwapDescription calldata desc,
141        IERC20 srcToken,
142        IERC20 dstToken,
143        address dstReceiver,
144        uint256 spentAmount,
145        uint256 returnAmount
146     ) private {
147        emit Swapped(
148            msg.sender,
149            srcToken,
150            dstToken,
151            dstReceiver,
152            desc.amount,
153            spentAmount,
154            returnAmount,
155            desc.minReturnAmount,
156            desc.guaranteedAmount,
157            desc.referrer
158        );
159    }
160
161    function _claim(IERC20 token, address dst, uint256 amount, bytes calldata permit) private {
162        // TODO: Is it safe to call permit on tokens without implemented permit? Fallback will be called. Is it bad for proxies?
163
164        if (permit.length == 32 * 7) {
165            // solhint-disable-next-line avoid-low-level-calls
166            (bool success, bytes memory result) = address(token).call(abi.encodeWithSelector(IERC20Permit.permit.selector, permit));
167            if (!success) {
168                revert(RevertReasonParser.parse(result, "Permit call failed: "));
169            }
170        }
171
172        token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, dst, amount);
173    }
174
175    function rescueFunds(IERC20 token, uint256 amount) external onlyOwner {
176        token.uniTransfer(msg.sender, amount);
177    }
178
179    function pause() external onlyOwner {
180        _pause();
181    }

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
9
1448
255
144
1843
1048
137

Tests to Code: 1843 / 1048 = 176 %