If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
PASS
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
Deployed contracts can be found here. A screenshot of the contract addresses can be found in the appendix.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
The Solana mainnet-beta address records more than 10 transactions a day, earning the protocol 100%.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Wormhole's core repository can be found here.
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
The wormhole repository has over 2500 commits, earning the protocol 100%.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Names of the Multiple Twitter accounts are publicly doxxed, displaying ties with Wormhole bridge. Two of these profiles can be found here: https://twitter.com/apram89 https://twitter.com/hendrikhofstadt A screenshot of a Twitter profile can be found in the appendix.
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
This protocol's software architecture is documented in the developer docs under its Architecture Overview section.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation in the Contract Development segment of the documentation, providing contract implementation functions for each chains. Additionally, more contract function coverage can be found here.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
There is implicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is a little over 100% 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.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
No test coverage evidence was found, but clearly there's a complete set of tests.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/wormhole-foundation/wormhole/tree/dev.v2/scripts
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
A test report example can be found here.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
This protocol has not undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
Testnet deployment addresses can be found here.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $10M.
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?
Admin control information is not clearly defined in the documentation. A mention of a 2/3 multisig for the 19 guardians over gas prices are mentioned and for that matter, the protocol will earn 30%.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
The Guardian contracts are mentioned to be upgradeable , but that leaves a lot of contracts without immutability/upgradeability documentation.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Ownership is not clearly indicated for most smart contracts besides the Guardian contract.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Smart contract change capabilities are not identified.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is in software specific language.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
This protocol's does not have a pause control for reasons documented clearly here : https://github.com/wormhole-foundation/wormhole/blob/dev.v2/SECURITY.md#Emergency-Shutdown This gives a score of 100%.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
This protocol has functional timelock documentation given with the Governor functionality, documented at https://github.com/wormhole-foundation/wormhole/blob/main/docs/governor.md
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
This protocol documentation is 24 hours, so 50%
This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. These questions are explained in this document.
26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
Wormhole's oracle is defined to be the Guardian Network, consisting of 19 validators strapiucing signed messages, governed by a VAA multisig.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
This protocol does not document front running mitigation techniques.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
This protocol does not document flash loan mitigation techniques.
1/ contracts/Bridge.sol
2// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache 2
3
4pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
5
6import "@openzeppelin/contracts/security/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
7import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
8import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
9
10import "../libraries/external/BytesLib.sol";
11
12import "./BridgeGetters.sol";
13import "./BridgeSetters.sol";
14import "./BridgeStructs.sol";
15import "./BridgeGovernance.sol";
16
17import "./token/Token.sol";
18import "./token/TokenImplementation.sol";
19
20contract Bridge is BridgeGovernance, ReentrancyGuard {
21 using BytesLib for bytes;
22
23 /*
24 * @dev Produce a AssetMeta message for a given token
25 */
26 function attestToken(address tokenAddress, uint32 nonce) public payable returns (uint64 sequence) {
27 // decimals, symbol & token are not part of the core ERC20 token standard, so we need to support contracts that dont implement them
28 (,bytes memory queriedDecimals) = tokenAddress.staticcall(abi.encodeWithSignature("decimals()"));
29 (,bytes memory queriedSymbol) = tokenAddress.staticcall(abi.encodeWithSignature("symbol()"));
30 (,bytes memory queriedName) = tokenAddress.staticcall(abi.encodeWithSignature("name()"));
31
32 uint8 decimals = abi.decode(queriedDecimals, (uint8));
33
34 string memory symbolString = abi.decode(queriedSymbol, (string));
35 string memory nameString = abi.decode(queriedName, (string));
36
37 bytes32 symbol;
38 bytes32 name;
39 assembly {
40 // first 32 bytes hold string length
41 symbol := mload(add(symbolString, 32))
42 name := mload(add(nameString, 32))
43 }
44
45 BridgeStructs.AssetMeta memory meta = BridgeStructs.AssetMeta({
46 payloadID : 2,
47 tokenAddress : bytes32(uint256(uint160(tokenAddress))), // Address of the token. Left-zero-padded if shorter than 32 bytes
48 tokenChain : chainId(), // Chain ID of the token
49 decimals : decimals, // Number of decimals of the token (big-endian uint8)
50 symbol : symbol, // Symbol of the token (UTF-8)
51 name : name // Name of the token (UTF-8)
52 });
53
54 bytes memory encoded = encodeAssetMeta(meta);
55
56 sequence = wormhole().publishMessage{
57 value : msg.value
58 }(nonce, encoded, finality());
59 }
60
61 /*
62 * @notice Send eth through portal by first wrapping it to WETH.
63 */
64 function wrapAndTransferETH(
65 uint16 recipientChain,
66 bytes32 recipient,
67 uint256 arbiterFee,
68 uint32 nonce
69 ) public payable returns (uint64 sequence) {
70 BridgeStructs.TransferResult
71 memory transferResult = _wrapAndTransferETH(arbiterFee);
72 sequence = logTransfer(
73 transferResult.tokenChain,
74 transferResult.tokenAddress,
75 transferResult.normalizedAmount,
76 recipientChain,
77 recipient,
78 transferResult.normalizedArbiterFee,
79 transferResult.wormholeFee,
80 nonce
81 );
82 }
83
84 /*
85 * @notice Send eth through portal by first wrapping it.
86 *
87 * @dev This type of transfer is called a "contract-controlled transfer".
88 * There are three differences from a regular token transfer:
89 * 1) Additional arbitrary payload can be attached to the message
90 * 2) Only the recipient (typically a contract) can redeem the transaction
91 * 3) The sender's address (msg.sender) is also included in the transaction payload
92 *
93 * With these three additional components, xDapps can implement cross-chain
94 * composable interactions.
95 */
96 function wrapAndTransferETHWithPayload(
97 uint16 recipientChain,
98 bytes32 recipient,
99 uint32 nonce,
100 bytes memory payload
101 ) public payable returns (uint64 sequence) {
102 BridgeStructs.TransferResult
103 memory transferResult = _wrapAndTransferETH(0);
104 sequence = logTransferWithPayload(
105 transferResult.tokenChain,
106 transferResult.tokenAddress,
107 transferResult.normalizedAmount,
108 recipientChain,
109 recipient,
110 transferResult.wormholeFee,
111 nonce,
112 payload
113 );
114 }
115
116 function _wrapAndTransferETH(uint256 arbiterFee) internal returns (BridgeStructs.TransferResult memory transferResult) {
117 uint wormholeFee = wormhole().messageFee();
118
119 require(wormholeFee < msg.value, "value is smaller than wormhole fee");
120
121 uint amount = msg.value - wormholeFee;
122
123 require(arbiterFee <= amount, "fee is bigger than amount minus wormhole fee");
124
125 uint normalizedAmount = normalizeAmount(amount, 18);
126 uint normalizedArbiterFee = normalizeAmount(arbiterFee, 18);
127
128 // refund dust
129 uint dust = amount - deNormalizeAmount(normalizedAmount, 18);
130 if (dust > 0) {
131 payable(msg.sender).transfer(dust);
132 }
133
134 // deposit into WETH
135 WETH().deposit{
136 value : amount - dust
137 }();
138
139 // track and check outstanding token amounts
140 bridgeOut(address(WETH()), normalizedAmount);
141
142 transferResult = BridgeStructs.TransferResult({
143 tokenChain : chainId(),
144 tokenAddress : bytes32(uint256(uint160(address(WETH())))),
145 normalizedAmount : normalizedAmount,
146 normalizedArbiterFee : normalizedArbiterFee,
147 wormholeFee : wormholeFee
148 });
149 }
150
151 /*
152 * @notice Send ERC20 token through portal.
153 */
154 function transferTokens(
155 address token,
156 uint256 amount,
157 uint16 recipientChain,
158 bytes32 recipient,
159 uint256 arbiterFee,
160 uint32 nonce
161 ) public payable nonReentrant returns (uint64 sequence) {
162 BridgeStructs.TransferResult memory transferResult = _transferTokens(
163 token,
164 amount,
165 arbiterFee
166 );
167 sequence = logTransfer(
168 transferResult.tokenChain,
169 transferResult.tokenAddress,
Tests to Code: 4065 / 4056 = 100 %