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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Kyber Network 3.0

76%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Kyber Network 3.0

Final score:76%
Date:14 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick
PQR Score:76%

PASS

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
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
67%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.60%
9.0%
10.60%
65%
11.100%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
79%
17.90%
18.0%
63%
19.40%
20.90%
21.30%
22.80%
Total:76%

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.

Code And Team

100%

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%

They are available at website https://developer.kyber.network/docs/Addresses-Mainnet/, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, 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. Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 200+ transactions a day on contract 0xdd974d5c2e2928dea5f71b9825b8b646686bd200  , 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. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Is there 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, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No"

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%

With 300 commits and 10 branches, a rich development history is visible.

This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).

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)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

67%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The protocol details its functions in an overview page.

8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 60%

Some contracts are covered by documentation, though many contracts deployed are not covered.

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. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 0%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 12% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code
90 - 70%
CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code
60 - 20%
CtC > 20 Some useful commenting
0%
CtC < 20 No useful commenting

10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%

Code is dissected in the software documentation though the traceability between the two is nonexplicit.

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

65%

11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 216% 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 reviewers 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

12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%

There is no indication of code coverage, but a 216% TtC ratio indicates good testing.

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 reasonably complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scrips/Instructions location: https://github.com/KyberNetwork/smart-contracts

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no test report.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

15. Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

No proof of formal verification could be found.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

Kyber has been deployed to multiple testnets.​

Security

79%

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

17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 90%

A single audit has been completed this year; the results are public.​

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code.

18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 0%

Aside from temporary bug bounties offered in 2019 at hackathons, no bug bounty program has been found.

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
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.

Access Controls

63%

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.

19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 40%

Access control information is present, but not well labelled.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

20. Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 90%

a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% -- the contracts are clearly explained as modifiable.    b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% --- three different ownership groups are (clearly identified)[https://docs.defisafety.com/master/kyber-network-3.0-0.7-process-quality-review]    c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30% -- the capacity for change is explained well using both diagrams and text.

Percentage Score Guidance:
All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 30%

The documentation details the information in technical language.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 80%

Pause controls are mentioned with details, but there is no documented testing.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 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

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

Email: rex@defisafety.com
Twitter: @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education.  It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process.  Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development. DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

1contract DMMFactory is IDMMFactory {
2    using EnumerableSet for EnumerableSet.AddressSet;
34    uint256 internal constant BPS = 10000;
56    address private feeTo;
7    uint16 private governmentFeeBps;
8    address public override feeToSetter;
910    mapping(IERC20 => mapping(IERC20 => EnumerableSet.AddressSet)) internal tokenPools;
11    mapping(IERC20 => mapping(IERC20 => address)) public override getUnamplifiedPool;
12    address[] public override allPools;
1314    event PoolCreated(
15        IERC20 indexed token0,
16        IERC20 indexed token1,
17        address pool,
18        uint32 ampBps,
19        uint256 totalPool
20    );
21    event SetFeeConfiguration(address feeTo, uint16 governmentFeeBps);
22    event SetFeeToSetter(address feeToSetter);
2324    constructor(address _feeToSetter) public {
25        feeToSetter = _feeToSetter;
26    }
2728    function createPool(
29        IERC20 tokenA,
30        IERC20 tokenB,
31        uint32 ampBps
32    ) external override returns (address pool) {
33        require(tokenA != tokenB, "DMM: IDENTICAL_ADDRESSES");
34        (IERC20 token0, IERC20 token1) = tokenA < tokenB ? (tokenA, tokenB) : (tokenB, tokenA);
35        require(address(token0) != address(0), "DMM: ZERO_ADDRESS");
36        require(ampBps >= BPS, "DMM: INVALID_BPS");
37        / only exist 1 unamplified pool of a pool.
38        require(
39            ampBps != BPS || getUnamplifiedPool[token0][token1] == address(0),
40            "DMM: UNAMPLIFIED_POOL_EXISTS"
41        );
42        pool = address(new DMMPool());
43        DMMPool(pool).initialize(token0, token1, ampBps);
44        / populate mapping in the reverse direction
45        tokenPools[token0][token1].add(pool);
46        tokenPools[token1][token0].add(pool);
47        if (ampBps == BPS) {
48            getUnamplifiedPool[token0][token1] = pool;
49            getUnamplifiedPool[token1][token0] = pool;
50        }
51        allPools.push(pool);
5253        emit PoolCreated(token0, token1, pool, ampBps, allPools.length);
54    }
5556    function setFeeConfiguration(address _feeTo, uint16 _governmentFeeBps) external override {
57        require(msg.sender == feeToSetter, "DMM: FORBIDDEN");
58        require(_governmentFeeBps > 0 && _governmentFeeBps < 2000, "DMM: INVALID FEE");
59        feeTo = _feeTo;
60        governmentFeeBps = _governmentFeeBps;
6162        emit SetFeeConfiguration(_feeTo, _governmentFeeBps);
63    }
6465    function setFeeToSetter(address _feeToSetter) external override {
66        require(msg.sender == feeToSetter, "DMM: FORBIDDEN");
67        feeToSetter = _feeToSetter;
6869        emit SetFeeToSetter(_feeToSetter);
70    }
7172    function getFeeConfiguration()
73        external
74        override
75        view
76        returns (address _feeTo, uint16 _governmentFeeBps)
77    {
78        _feeTo = feeTo;
79        _governmentFeeBps = governmentFeeBps;
80    }
8182    function allPoolsLength() external override view returns (uint256) {
83        return allPools.length;
84    }
8586    function getPools(IERC20 token0, IERC20 token1)
87        external
88        override
89        view
90        returns (address[] memory _tokenPools)
91    {
92        uint256 length = tokenPools[token0][token1].length();
93        _tokenPools = new address[](length);
94        for (uint256 i = 0; i < length; i++) {
95            _tokenPools[i] = tokenPools[token0][token1].at(i);
96        }
97    }
9899    function getPoolsLength(IERC20 token0, IERC20 token1) external view returns (uint256) {
100        return tokenPools[token0][token1].length();
101    }
102103    function getPoolAtIndex(
104        IERC20 token0,
105        IERC20 token1,
106        uint256 index
107    ) external view returns (address pool) {
108        return tokenPools[token0][token1].at(index);
109    }
110111    function isPool(
112        IERC20 token0,
113        IERC20 token1,
114        address pool
115    ) external override view returns (bool) {
116        return tokenPools[token0][token1].contains(pool);
117    }
118}

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
11
2220
199
214
1807
153

Comments to Code: 214 / 1807 =  12 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
15
4699
569
191
3912
91

Tests to Code: 3912 / 1807 = 216 %