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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Orion Protocol

50%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Orion Protocol

Final score:50%
Date:14 Jul 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:50%

FAIL

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
#QuestionAnswer
76%
1.40%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
76%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.80%
9.26%
10.60%
58%
11.80%
12.60%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
21%
17.20%
18.30%
31%
19.40%
20.60%
21.30%
22.0%
Total:50%

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

76%

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: 40%

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 90 transactions a day on contract Exchange.sol, 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

GitHub: /orion-exchange https://github.com/orionprotocol/.​

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 226 commits and 5 branches in their main contracts repository, this is a healthy development history.

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

Orion Protocol's team member information can be found at https://www.orionprotocol.io/about.

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

76%

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

There are basic Orion Protocol software functions documented here (p.34-35) and here.

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

Answer: 80%

Orion Protocol has documented the software functions (code) of the most major of their contracts, which are those of their exchange. In addition, there is robust Orion API documentation 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. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 26%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 26% 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%

Orion Protocol's documentation lists all the major functions while non-explicitly tracing them back to their source code in their API documentation.​

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

58%

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

Answer: 80%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 95% 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: 60%

Orion Protocol has a passing CI and a robust set of tests (95% TtC), but the CL does not link to a coverage report.

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: There are scripts located here and instructions to run tests at the bottom of here, and here.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test report was found in the Orion Protocol GitHub repository or any of their documentation.

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 evidence of a Orion Protocol Formal Verification test was found in their documentation or in web searches.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

There is evidence of Orion Protocol's test-net smart contract usage at https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/blob/master/Deployment.md.

Security

21%

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

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

Answer: 20%
  • Certik published a Orion Token Sale audit report on July 11th 2020. This does not concern the smart contracts of the protocol that does not seem to have an audit yet. Therefore a 20% score.  - Orion Protocol launched their mainnet (Orion Terminal) on May 31st 2021.  - Note: Most of the Certik fix recommendations were purely informational, and did not necessarily require implementation from the Orion Protocol team.

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: 30%

Orion protocol previously had a Bug Hunter Program that rewarded beta testers with up to 100,000 USDT for the most critical of bug finds.

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

31%

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 controls were found in the "Orion Protocol and Foundation" section of the Orion Protocol whitepaper (p.31), as well as https://github.com/orionprotocol/orion-exchange/tree/master/docs.

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: 60%

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%

All access control descriptions in the Orion Protocol documentation are all written in a very technical fashion that could be difficult for users to understand.

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: 0%

No evidence of Pause Control or similar functions found in the Orion Protocol documentation.

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.

1/**
2 * @title Exchange
3 * @dev Exchange contract for the Orion Protocol
4 * @author @wafflemakr
5 */
67/*
8  Overflow safety:
9  We do not use SafeMath and control overflows by
10  not accepting large ints on input.
11  Balances inside contract are stored as int192.
12  Allowed input amounts are int112 or uint112: it is enough for all
13  practically used tokens: for instance if decimal unit is 1e18, int112
14  allow to encode up to 2.5e15 decimal units.
15  That way adding/subtracting any amount from balances won't overflow, since
16  minimum number of operations to reach max int is practically infinite: ~1e24.
17  Allowed prices are uint64. Note, that price is represented as
18  price per 1e8 tokens. That means that amount*price always fit uint256,
19  while amount*price/1e8 not only fit int192, but also can be added, subtracted
20  without overflow checks: number of malicion operations to overflow ~1e13.
21*/
22contract Exchange is OrionVault, ReentrancyGuard {
2324    using LibValidator for LibValidator.Order;
25    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
2627    /  Flags for updateOrders
28    /      All flags are explicit
29    uint8 constant kSell = 0;
30    uint8 constant kBuy = 1;    //  if 0 - then sell
31    uint8 constant kCorrectMatcherFeeByOrderAmount = 2;
3233    // EVENTS
34    event NewAssetTransaction(
35        address indexed user,
36        address indexed assetAddress,
37        bool isDeposit,
38        uint112 amount,
39        uint64 timestamp
40    );
4142    event NewTrade(
43        address indexed buyer,
44        address indexed seller,
45        address baseAsset,
46        address quoteAsset,
47        uint64 filledPrice,
48        uint192 filledAmount,
49        uint192 amountQuote
50    );
5152    // MAIN FUNCTIONS
5354    /**
55     * @dev Since Exchange will work behind the Proxy contract it can not have constructor
56     */
57    function initialize() public payable initializer {
58        OwnableUpgradeSafe.__Ownable_init();
59    }
6061    /**
62     * @dev set basic Exchange params
63     * @param orionToken - base token address
64     * @param priceOracleAddress - adress of PriceOracle contract
65     * @param allowedMatcher - address which has authorization to match orders
66     */
67    function setBasicParams(address orionToken, address priceOracleAddress, address allowedMatcher) public onlyOwner {
68      require((orionToken != address(0)) && (priceOracleAddress != address(0)), "E15");
69      _orionToken = IERC20(orionToken);
70      _oracleAddress = priceOracleAddress;
71      _allowedMatcher = allowedMatcher;
72    }
737475    /**
76     * @dev set marginal settings
77     * @param _collateralAssets - list of addresses of assets which may be used as collateral
78     * @param _stakeRisk - risk coefficient for staken orion as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
79     * @param _liquidationPremium - premium for liquidator as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
80     * @param _priceOverdue - time after that price became outdated
81     * @param _positionOverdue - time after that liabilities became overdue and may be liquidated
82     */
8384    function updateMarginalSettings(address[] calldata _collateralAssets,
85                                    uint8 _stakeRisk,
86                                    uint8 _liquidationPremium,
87                                    uint64 _priceOverdue,
88                                    uint64 _positionOverdue) public onlyOwner {
89      collateralAssets = _collateralAssets;
90      stakeRisk = _stakeRisk;
91      liquidationPremium = _liquidationPremium;
92      priceOverdue = _priceOverdue;
93      positionOverdue = _positionOverdue;
94    }
9596    /**
97     * @dev set risk coefficients for collateral assets
98     * @param assets - list of assets
99     * @param risks - list of risks as uint8 (0=0, 255=1)
100     */
101    function updateAssetRisks(address[] calldata assets, uint8[] calldata risks) public onlyOwner {
102        for(uint256 i; i< assets.length; i++)
103         assetRisks[assets[i]] = risks[i];
104    }
105106    /**
107     * @dev Deposit ERC20 tokens to the exchange contract
108     * @dev User needs to approve token contract first
109     * @param amount asset amount to deposit in its base unit
110     */
111    function depositAsset(address assetAddress, uint112 amount) external {
112        //require(asset.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), uint256(amount)), "E6");
113        IERC20(assetAddress).safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), uint256(amount));
114        generalDeposit(assetAddress,amount);
115    }
116117    /**
118     * @notice Deposit ETH to the exchange contract
119     * @dev deposit event will be emitted with the amount in decimal format (10^8)
120     * @dev balance will be stored in decimal format too
121     */
122    function deposit() external payable {
123        generalDeposit(address(0), uint112(msg.value));
124    }
125126    /**
127     * @dev internal implementation of deposits
128     */
129    function generalDeposit(address assetAddress, uint112 amount) internal {
130        address user = msg.sender;
131        bool wasLiability = assetBalances[user][assetAddress]<0;
132        int112 safeAmountDecimal = LibUnitConverter.baseUnitToDecimal(
133            assetAddress,
134            amount
135        );
136        assetBalances[user][assetAddress] += safeAmountDecimal;
137        if(amount>0)
138          emit NewAssetTransaction(user, assetAddress, true, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), uint64(block.timestamp));
139        if(wasLiability)
140          MarginalFunctionality.updateLiability(user, assetAddress, liabilities, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), assetBalances[user][assetAddress]);
141142    }
143    /**
144     * @dev Withdrawal of remaining funds from the contract back to the address
145     * @param assetAddress address of the asset to withdraw
146     * @param amount asset amount to withdraw in its base unit
147     */
148    function withdraw(address assetAddress, uint112 amount)
149        external
150        nonReentrant
151    {
152        int112 safeAmountDecimal = LibUnitConverter.baseUnitToDecimal(
153            assetAddress,
154            amount
155        );
156157        address user = msg.sender;
158159        assetBalances[user][assetAddress] -= safeAmountDecimal;
160161        require(assetBalances[user][assetAddress]>=0, "E1w1"); //TODO
162        require(checkPosition(user), "E1w2"); //TODO
163164        uint256 _amount = uint256(amount);
165        if(assetAddress == address(0)) {
166          (bool success, ) = user.call{value:_amount}("");
167          require(success, "E6w");
168        } else {
169          IERC20(assetAddress).safeTransfer(user, _amount);
170        }
171172173        emit NewAssetTransaction(user, assetAddress, false, uint112(safeAmountDecimal), uint64(block.timestamp));
174    }
175

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
55
5058
580
917
3561
366

Comments to Code: 917 / 3561 =  26 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
18
4550
676
499
3375
64

Tests to Code: 3375 / 3561 = 95 %