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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Wormhole

75%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Wormhole

Final score:75%
Date:03 Nov 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:75%

PASS

Protocol Website:wormhole.com

Security Incidents

Date:02 Feb 2022
Details: $325M was able to mint 120k wEth on Solana and then port it into mainet for exchane to Eth. This was done because a security patch was visible on the public GitHub before implementation. No penalty as this occurred more than 6 months ago.
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
Solana
Terra
Near
Algorand
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
72%
10.80%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
100%
16.100%
17.100%
42%
18.30%
19.30%
20.30%
21.0%
22.30%
23.100%
24.95%
25.50%
50%
26.100
27.No
28.No
Total:75%

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%

Deployed contracts can be found here. A screenshot of the contract addresses can be found 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%

The Solana mainnet-beta address records more than 10 transactions a day, earning the protocol 100%.

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

Wormhole's core 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%

The wormhole repository has over 2500 commits, earning the protocol 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: 100

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.

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

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in the developer docs under its Architecture Overview section.

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 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.

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 between software documentation and implemented 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

72%

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

Answer: 80%

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.

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%

No test coverage evidence was found, but clearly there's 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%

A test report example can be found here.

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

Testnet deployment addresses 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

100%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is a page of many audits. We have reviewed two different ones. Several links go to the same file. (here and here. Each review did find significant vulnerabilities but they were properly resolved.

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: 100%

This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $10M.

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: 30%

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%.

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: 30%

The Guardian contracts are mentioned to be upgradeable , but that leaves a lot of contracts without immutability/upgradeability documentation.

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: 30%

Ownership is not clearly indicated for most smart contracts besides the Guardian contract.

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: 30%

This information is in software specific 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%

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%.

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: 95%

This protocol has functional timelock documentation given with the Governor functionality, documented at https://github.com/wormhole-foundation/wormhole/blob/main/docs/governor.md

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%

This protocol documentation is 24 hours, so 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

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? (%)

Answer: 100

Wormhole's oracle is defined to be the Guardian Network, consisting of 19 validators strapiucing signed messages, governed by a VAA multisig.

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

This protocol does not document front running mitigation techniques.

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

This protocol does not document flash loan mitigation techniques.

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/ 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,

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
10
5395
899
431
4065
4056
110

Tests to Code: 4065 / 4056 = 100 %