Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Analysis #442

Open
c4-bot-5 opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Analysis #442

c4-bot-5 opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels

Comments

@c4-bot-5
Copy link
Contributor

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

c4-bot-7 added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2024
c4-bot-1 added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2024
@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality label Mar 24, 2024
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

0xEVom marked the issue as sufficient quality report

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Apr 1, 2024

jhsagd76 marked the issue as grade-c

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Apr 1, 2024
@c4-judge c4-judge added grade-c unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards labels Apr 1, 2024
@jhsagd76
Copy link

jhsagd76 commented Apr 1, 2024

The "What could they have done better?" section is completely irrelevant.

@albahaca0000
Copy link

Hey, sorry @jhsagd76 , could you please reread this analysis again?
Regarding the analysis itself, I believe it aligns well with the code4rena judging criteria. It provides a thorough examination of each contract's risks, including systemic risks, technical risks, integration risks, and centralization risks or admin abuse risks.

Areas of interest include:

Full representation of the project’s risk model:

Admin abuse risks

Systemic risks

Technical risks

Integration risks

In this report, it mentions excellent security analysis of every contract, covering systemic risk, integration risk, technical risk, and centralization risk or admin abuse risk. Based on the data analysis, there are no other analyses of grade A or grade B that can identify risks as effectively as this report does. It thoroughly analyzes every contract and suggests numerous risks.

Here are some key insights from the analysis:

  • V3Vault.sol

    1. Centralization Risks: The V3Vault.sol contract has an owner who has the power to set various parameters, including the emergency admin, interest rate model, and oracle. If the owner's private key is compromised, it could lead to unauthorized changes in the contract, potentially leading to a loss of funds. Additionally, the contract has a function setTransformer which allows the owner to set a transformer contract. If a malicious contract is set as the transformer, it could potentially steal funds.

    2. Technical Risks:

      • Complex logic for interest calculation, collateral checks etc. increase risk of bugs.

      • Values like collateral factors are configured through the contract. Misconfiguration could lead to issues.

    3. Integration Risks:

      • Adding/removing tokens/strategies also introduces risks from changing integrations.

      • Interfacing with external contracts like Uniswap, permit increases third party risks. Bugs in linked contracts impact this one.

  • V3Oracle.sol

    1. Systemic Risks

@jhsagd76
Copy link

jhsagd76 commented Apr 4, 2024

Alright, I just saw too much generic and irrelevant content in this analysis, particularly in the "What could they have done better?" section. But as you said, we also can't ignore the specific parts of the report.

@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Apr 4, 2024
@c4-judge c4-judge removed grade-c unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards labels Apr 4, 2024
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Apr 4, 2024

jhsagd76 marked the issue as grade-b

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants