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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

IronBank

86%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

IronBank

Final score:86%
Date:21 Sep 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:86%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://app.ib.xyz/

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
Avalanche
Ethereum
Fantom
Optimism
#QuestionAnswer
67%
1.100%
2.70%
3.Yes
4.30%
5.0
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
80%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
79%
16.80%
17.70%
97%
18.100%
19.80%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.100%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:86%

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. A screenshot of the contract page can be found in the appendix.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 100%

IronBank's smart contracts can be found in their documentation here.

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: 70%

The protocol's Unitroller contract has more than 10 transactions per week but does not go up to 10 transactions a day. The protocol earns 70% for this question. A screenshot of the transaction list 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

The protocol's GitHub 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: 30%

Outside of the forked repositories within the IronBank repository, the StakingRewards repository has 36 commits and 2 branches, which scores the protocol 30.

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

While many contributors of Iron Bank can be found on Twitter, none of them are identified to a public identity. For that matter, the protocol will not earn points on 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

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.ib.xyz/.  

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

Answer: Yes

There is exclusively verbal software architecture documentation within the Iron Bank GitBook. Some diagrams would go well nonetheless.

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%

The software functions are documented here and the coverage is extensive. The protocol will earn 100% on this question.    

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 implicit traceability as the function documentation can be cross-referenced with the code

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

80%

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

Answer: 100%

Using the proprietary IronBank code, the Test-to-Code ratio is 204%.    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: 50%

Because there is no code coverage documentation nor report, the score will be based on the fact that there is a complete set of tests.

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
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%

Iron Bank's main repository (ibdotxyz) features a Circle CI "Passed" badge which links back to test reports.

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. While there is Medium article mentioning IronBank being verified by Trail of Bits here, there are no records or mentions within the Iron Bank documentation of this 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

Kovan testnet deployments for the Optimism chain can be found 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

79%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 80%

Iron Bank has undergone an audit by MixBytes, which is available here. The audit displays 7 vulnerabilities, out of which 5 has been resolved and two medium level risks have been acknowledged.

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: 70%

IronBank's bug bounty is set at $250,000 USD, active on Immunefi.

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

97%

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%

A governance section can be found within the protocol's documentation here, explaining admin access controls.

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: 80%

Upgradeability is mentioned within the iToken Address page.

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 as OnlyOwner within the Governance section.

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: 100%

Change capabilities are described within the Governance page.

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%

Admin control information is described in non-software language.

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: 100%

Iron Bank's Guardian acts as Pause control. Its documentation can be found here.

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: 100%

Timelock functions are provided; duration of 48 hours is explained as well and the scope of the timelocks are described within the governance page.

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 length of the timelock is 48 hours; this gives 100% for the protocol.

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 specifies Chainlink to be their Oracle source and specifies an example of timeframe (3600 seconds for ETH/USD) in their Oracle's section. Additional software function documentation is identified.

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: Yes

Front running mitigation is described within the Price Oracle documentation with on-chain alternatives such as their Guardian.  

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

Flashloan attack mitigation is described within their Oracle Latency documentation.

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
1// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later
2
3pragma solidity ^0.8.2;
4
5/**
6 * @dev Interface of the ERC20 standard as defined in the EIP.
7 */
8interface IERC20 {
9    function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
10    function decimals() external view returns (uint8);
11    function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
12    function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
13    function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
14    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
15    function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
16    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
17    event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
18}
19
20/**
21 * @dev Interface of the ERC2612 standard as defined in the EIP.
22 *
23 * Adds the {permit} method, which can be used to change one's
24 * {IERC20-allowance} without having to send a transaction, by signing a
25 * message. This allows users to spend tokens without having to hold Ether.
26 *
27 * See https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612.
28 */
29interface IERC2612 {
30
31    /**
32     * @dev Returns the current ERC2612 nonce for `owner`. This value must be
33     * included whenever a signature is generated for {permit}.
34     *
35     * Every successful call to {permit} increases ``owner``'s nonce by one. This
36     * prevents a signature from being used multiple times.
37     */
38    function nonces(address owner) external view returns (uint256);
39    function permit(address target, address spender, uint256 value, uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external;
40    function transferWithPermit(address target, address to, uint256 value, uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external returns (bool);
41
42}
43
44/// @dev Wrapped ERC-20 v10 (AnyswapV3ERC20) is an ERC-20 ERC-20 wrapper. You can `deposit` ERC-20 and obtain an AnyswapV3ERC20 balance which can then be operated as an ERC-20 token. You can
45/// `withdraw` ERC-20 from AnyswapV3ERC20, which will then burn AnyswapV3ERC20 token in your wallet. The amount of AnyswapV3ERC20 token in any wallet is always identical to the
46/// balance of ERC-20 deposited minus the ERC-20 withdrawn with that specific wallet.
47interface IAnyswapV3ERC20 is IERC20, IERC2612 {
48
49    /// @dev Sets `value` as allowance of `spender` account over caller account's AnyswapV3ERC20 token,
50    /// after which a call is executed to an ERC677-compliant contract with the `data` parameter.
51    /// Emits {Approval} event.
52    /// Returns boolean value indicating whether operation succeeded.
53    /// For more information on approveAndCall format, see https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677.
54    function approveAndCall(address spender, uint256 value, bytes calldata data) external returns (bool);
55
56    /// @dev Moves `value` AnyswapV3ERC20 token from caller's account to account (`to`),
57    /// after which a call is executed to an ERC677-compliant contract with the `data` parameter.
58    /// A transfer to `address(0)` triggers an ERC-20 withdraw matching the sent AnyswapV3ERC20 token in favor of caller.
59    /// Emits {Transfer} event.
60    /// Returns boolean value indicating whether operation succeeded.
61    /// Requirements:
62    ///   - caller account must have at least `value` AnyswapV3ERC20 token.
63    /// For more information on transferAndCall format, see https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677.
64    function transferAndCall(address to, uint value, bytes calldata data) external returns (bool);
65}
66
67interface ITransferReceiver {
68    function onTokenTransfer(address, uint, bytes calldata) external returns (bool);
69}
70
71interface IApprovalReceiver {
72    function onTokenApproval(address, uint, bytes calldata) external returns (bool);
73}
74
75library Address {
76    function isContract(address account) internal view returns (bool) {
77        bytes32 codehash;
78        bytes32 accountHash = 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470;
79        // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
80        assembly { codehash := extcodehash(account) }
81        return (codehash != 0x0 && codehash != accountHash);
82    }
83}
84
85library SafeERC20 {
86    using Address for address;
87
88    function safeTransfer(IERC20 token, address to, uint value) internal {
89        callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.transfer.selector, to, value));
90    }
91
92    function safeTransferFrom(IERC20 token, address from, address to, uint value) internal {
93        callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.transferFrom.selector, from, to, value));
94    }
95
96    function safeApprove(IERC20 token, address spender, uint value) internal {
97        require((value == 0) || (token.allowance(address(this), spender) == 0),
98            "SafeERC20: approve from non-zero to non-zero allowance"
99        );
100        callOptionalReturn(token, abi.encodeWithSelector(token.approve.selector, spender, value));
101    }
102    function callOptionalReturn(IERC20 token, bytes memory data) private {
103        require(address(token).isContract(), "SafeERC20: call to non-contract");
104
105        // solhint-disable-next-line avoid-low-level-calls
106        (bool success, bytes memory returndata) = address(token).call(data);
107        require(success, "SafeERC20: low-level call failed");
108
109        if (returndata.length > 0) { // Return data is optional
110            // solhint-disable-next-line max-line-length
111            require(abi.decode(returndata, (bool)), "SafeERC20: ERC20 operation did not succeed");
112        }
113    }
114}
115
116contract AnyswapV6ERC20 is IAnyswapV3ERC20 {
117    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
118    string public name;
119    string public symbol;
120    uint8  public immutable override decimals;
121
122    address public immutable underlying;
123
124    bytes32 public constant PERMIT_TYPEHASH = keccak256("Permit(address owner,address spender,uint256 value,uint256 nonce,uint256 deadline)");
125    bytes32 public constant TRANSFER_TYPEHASH = keccak256("Transfer(address owner,address to,uint256 value,uint256 nonce,uint256 deadline)");
126    bytes32 public immutable DOMAIN_SEPARATOR;
127
128    /// @dev Records amount of AnyswapV3ERC20 token owned by account.
129    mapping (address => uint256) public override balanceOf;
130    uint256 private _totalSupply;
131
132    // init flag for setting immediate vault, needed for CREATE2 support
133    bool private _init;
134
135    // flag to enable/disable swapout vs vault.burn so multiple events are triggered
136    bool private _vaultOnly;
137
138    // configurable delay for timelock functions
139    uint public delay = 2*24*3600;
140
141
142    // set of minters, can be this bridge or other bridges
143    mapping(address => bool) public isMinter;
144    address[] public minters;
145
146    // primary controller of the token contract
147    address public vault;
148
149    address public pendingMinter;
150    uint public delayMinter;
151
152    address public pendingVault;
153    uint public delayVault;
154
155    modifier onlyAuth() {
156        require(isMinter[msg.sender], "AnyswapV4ERC20: FORBIDDEN");
157        _;
158    }
159
160    modifier onlyVault() {
161        require(msg.sender == mpc(), "AnyswapV3ERC20: FORBIDDEN");
162        _;
163    }
164
165    function owner() public view returns (address) {
166        return mpc();
167    }
168
169    function mpc() public view returns (address) {
170        if (block.timestamp >= delayVault) {
171            return pendingVault;
172        }
173        return vault;
174    }

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
JSON
12
6205
411
48
5746
2814
64

Tests to Code: 5746 / 2814 = 204 %